The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems
Engineering: A Survey of Senior Systems Engineers
by
FAAIZA RASHID
Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering
Lehigh University (2004)
MASSACHUSETS INSTE'
Bachelor of Arts, International Relations
Lehigh University (2005)
OF TECHNOLOGY
JUN 2 3 2010
LIBRARIES
Submitted to the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
ARCHIVES
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 2008
0 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All Rights Reserved.
Signature of Author...........
......................................
Technology and Policy Program, Engineering Systems Division
May 9, 2008
Certified by....
..............................................................................
ohn S. Carroll
Morris A. Adelman Professor of Management, MIT
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by.......................
(
(
DavaJ. Newman
Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems
Director, Technology and Policy Program
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems
Engineering: A Survey of Senior Systems Engineers
by
FAAIZA RASHID
Submitted to the Engineering Systems Division on May 9, 2008
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
Abstract
Systems engineering efforts are becoming increasingly complex, novel and
interdependent, making traditional systems engineering approaches only partially
applicable to such efforts. Consequently, a new discipline is emerging called Enterprise
Systems Engineering(ESE), where enterprise is defined as a collection of interdependent
systems, including people, processes, and technology that can refer to a supply chain, a
corporation, a program, or other large-scale, complex adaptive entities. Enterprises are
comprised of multiple powerful stakeholders (suppliers, sponsors, customers, users) with
competing interests who have to coordinate and collaborate. Lacking a stable, single
control authority, enterprises often have contestable decision-making and governance
domains. Therefore, ESE projects frequently evolve in somewhat unpredictable ways
due, in part, to their multiple end users and multiple stakeholder organizations. These
drivers of unpredictability define the 'social contexts' of ESE, and include organizational
and political challenges that are usually very difficult to overcome.
Currently, practitioners are concerned because there is neither a theory nor a set of best
practices to better manage the social contexts of ESE. Fundamental questions remain
about the nature and impact of social context challenges. To address these questions, a
survey questionnaire was fielded to senior systems engineers, with depth and breadth of
experience leading enterprise scale initiatives.
The results show that social context challenges significantly impact ESE success with a
large majority of the respondents assessing these challenges to be equally or more
important than technical challenges in ESE. The critical social context challenges are
building relationships, achieving consensus, communicating and listening, managing
uncertainty and change, and dealing with organizational and process factors. Effectively
managing these challenges requires individual skills, a certain mindset, and an enabling
environment.
The results of this study can help focus future research, provide a basis for development
programs for ESE, inform systems engineering curricula in academic institutes, and help
build organizational mechanisms conducive to effective management of social context
challenges in ESE.
Thesis Supervisor: John S. Carroll
Title: Morris A. Adelman Professor of Management, MIT
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
To my loved ones
Who inspire me to be better
Who show me everyday
the beauty andpurpose of hIfe
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
Acknowledgements
My research would not have been possible without the support and guidance of Dr.
John S. Carroll. Dr. Carroll was not just a research advisor, but also a mentor who truly
wanted to see me succeed. I have learned immensely from him and I thank him for all his
advice, encouragement, and conversations. A very special thanks to Dr. John Boiney from
MITRE Corporation! I cannot write enough about his enthusiasm, remarkable drive and
energy. I was fortunate to work with such a collaborative, thoughtful and insightful person.
His input and support is fundamental to my work. I would also like to thank Dr. JoAnn
Brooks, Dr. Jon Beard and others at MITRE who provided valuable input and suggestions
throughout this study. I am grateful to all the participants in this study who shared their
wisdom and knowledge and did so with great clarity and quality.
For their endless support and encouragement, I would like to thank my family,
especially my parents, Syed Rashid Mahboob and Tasneem Sultana. I have learned a lot
from them. Besides perseverance, patience and kindness, they have taught me the amazing
skill to assess and not judge and live a purpose-based life. Your lessons have given me
smiles, hope and impetus to embrace life for what it is. Your trust and confidence in me
nurtures my confidence in myself. So thank you for being you!
This study and my time at MIT would not have been as fulfilling and enriching
without my friends with whom I have had extensive intellectual discussions. Friends that
have given me advice and support whenever I needed and with whom I have developed my
vision for the world. You have taught me how the most inspiring people are the ones who
are easily inspired. From you I have also learned that engaging with the world and actively
thriving to make it better is far more filfilling than merely talking about it. You know who
you are and I thank you!
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
Table of Contents
I. INTR O D U CTIO N ...............................................................................................
15
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT BACKGROUND............19
II.1 Relevant Terms in Systems Study...........................................................
19
11.2 System s Engineering ...............................................................................
21
11.3 Enterprise Systems Engineering..............................................................
22
II.4 Research in the Field of Enterprise Systems Engineering...........................
27
11.5 Social Contexts of Enterprise Systems Engineering...................................
32
Ill. RESEARCH METHOD....................................................................................35
III.1 Research Context and Comparison of Survey Methods............................
35
111.2 Survey Design and Administration .........................................................
36
111.3 Methods for Data Analysis.....................................................................
42
III.4 C losing N otes.........................................................................................
44
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................
47
IV.1 Survey Population ..................................................................................
47
IV.2 Importance of Social Context Challenges................................................
48
IV.3 Critical Social Context Challenges .........................................................
50
IV.4 Effective Practices to Manage Social Context Challenges.......................
54
IV.5 Sum mary of Results ...............................................................................
67
V. D ISCU SSIO N .................................................................................................
69
V.1 Comparison of Results with SCESE Case Studies....................................
69
V.2 Synthesis of Results with Literature .........................................................
74
V.3 Future Research.......................................................................................
80
VI. C O N C LU SION .............................................................................................
85
VII. REFEREN C E S.............................................................................................
89
VIII. APPEN D IC ES .............................................................................................
93
VIII.1 Appendix A: Survey Email Invite and Survey Instrument .....................
94
VIII.2 Appendix B: Chi-square and Kendall Rank Order Test Example.......... 99
VIII.3 Appendix C: Why a Given Social Context Challenge is Critical?............ 100
VIII.4 Appendix D: Definitions of Systems Engineering ..................................
107
VIII.5 Appendix E: The Learning Plan.............................................................
109
List of Figures
Figure 1: Systems Engineering Products ....................................................................
21
Figure 2: The Parallel and Iterative Processes of Systems Engineering ........................
22
Figure 3: ESE Complements TSE ............................................................................
24
Figure 4: The Enterprise Systems Engineering Profiler .............................................
25
Figure 5: Comparison of Vertically Integrated Organizations and Networked
Enterprises .................................................................................................
26
Figure 6: Business, ESE and TSE Processes ............................................................
29
Figure 7: Enterprises Need Information Generation, Management and Exploitation ..... 31
Figure 8: Feedback on SCESE Survey Questionnaire from Beta-testing and
D iscussions................................................................................................
38
Figure 9: Concerns with Survey Re-scoping Questions................................................
39
Figure 10: Number of Different SE Projects Led by Respondents .............................
47
Figure 11: Respondents' Years of Experience as Project Lead for SE Efforts ...............
48
Figure 12: Impact of Social Context Challenges on ESE Success...............................
48
Figure 13: Change in Social Context Challenges in ESE ...........................................
48
Figure 14: Importance of Social Context Challenges Relative to Technical Issues
in E SE ....................................................................................................
49
Figure 15: The Learning Plan to Counter Project Uncertainty .....................................
109
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
List of Tables
Table 1: Key Terms in Systems Study.........................................................................19
Table 2: Definitions of Enterprise Systems Engineering..............................................
23
Table 3. Pros and Cons of Survey Methods ...............................................................
36
Table 4: Critical Social Context Challenges in ESE..................................................
50
Table 5: Communication and Listening Helps Manage Other Social Context
Challenges in ESE ......................................................................................
51
Table 6: Effective Relationships Help Manage Other Social Context Challenges
in E SE .....................................................................................................
. 52
Table 7: Additions to Survey's List of Social Context Challenges................................
53
Table 8: Elaborations to Survey's List of Social Context Challenges...........................
53
Table 9: How to Build Effective Relationships...........................................................
54
Table 10: How to Achieve Consensus.........................................................................
56
Table 11: How to Communicate Effectively..............................................................
58
Table 12: How to Respond Effectively to Uncertainty and Change ............................
61
Table 13: How to Deal with Organizational and Process Factors................................
63
Table 14: How to Exert Influence..............................................................................
66
Table 15: How to Draw and Enhance MITRE's Reputation ......................................
67
Table 16: Comparison of Social Context Challenges in SCESE Survey and
Case Studies.............................................................................................
69
Table 17: Enterprise Value Framework .....................................................................
80
Table 18: Effective Practices Matrix...........................................................................
84
Table 19: Why Build Effective Relationships in ESE?..................................................
100
Table 20: Why Communicate and Listen Effectively in ESE?......................................
101
Table 21: Why Achieve Consensus?.............................................................................
102
Table 22: Why Deal with Organizational and Process Factors?.....................................
103
Table 23: Why Respond to Uncertainty and Change?...................................................
104
Table 24: Why Exert Influence?...................................................................................
105
Table 25: Why Draw On and Enhance Reputation?.....................................................
106
Table 26. Description of Systems Engineering Processes .............................................
108
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
and Political Challenges of Enteiris
gh
ranizational
ytm
niern
Faaiza Rashid
I. Introduction
Systems engineering efforts are becoming increasingly complex, novel and
interdependent, making traditional systems engineering approaches only partially applicable
to such efforts.
Consequently, a new discipline is emerging called Enterprise Systems
Engineering (ESE), where enterprise is defined as a collection of interdependent systems,
including people, processes, and technology that can refer to a supply chain, a corporation,
a program, or other large-scale, complex adaptive entities.1 Enterprises are comprised of
multiple powerful stakeholders (suppliers, sponsors, customers, users) with competing
interests who have to coordinate and collaborate. Lacking a stable, single control authority,
enterprises often have contestable decision-making and governance domains.2 Therefore,
ESE projects frequently evolve in somewhat unpredictable ways due, in part, to their
multiple end users and multiple stakeholder organizations. These drivers of unpredictability
defme the 'social contexts' of ESE, and include organizational and political challenges that
are usually very difficult to overcome.
Currently, practitioners are concerned because there is neither a theory nor a set of
best practices to better manage enterprises. Therefore, MITRE, a not-for-profit FederallyFunded Research and Development Center and a leader in systems engineering, established
an ESE Focus Group in October 2004. Through a set of case studies, the Focus Group
found that ESE required new socio-cultural skills such as strategic envisioning, conflict
management, and coalition building (Crider and DeRosa 2007). Besides the ESE Focus
Group, MITRE initiated multiple collaborative research efforts with institutes and
organizations including MIT's Engineering Systems Division (ESD). The MIT-MITRE
collaboration is comprised of four joint research projects: one on the social contexts of
ESE, two on real options regarding engineering design and financial aspects of ESE, and
one on dynamic modeling and simulation of enterprises. This study is part of the joint
project on the Social Contexts ofEnterpriseSystems Engineering(SCESE) (Brooks 2007).
This definition was developed in collaboration with Dr. John Carroll, MIT and Dr. John Boiney,
MITRE.
1
2
Adapted from Social Contexts ofEnterpriseSystems EngineeringTier 1 case studies, MITRE, 2007.
-
15 -
The Organizational and Political Chalenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The purpose of this
Research
Ouestions
study is to answer four
1) What is the impact of social context challenges
on ESE project success?
questions
fundamental
about the social contexts of
2) How do social context challenges compare to
technical challenges in ESE?
ESE: 1) What is the
impact of social context
3) What are the specific social context challenges
critical to ESE project success?
4) How can senior systems engineers effectively
manage critical social context challenges in
ESE?
success? 2) How do social
context challenges compare
to technical challenges in
ESE? 3) What are the
specific social context challenges critical to ESE project success? 4) How can senior systems
engineers effectively manage critical social context challenges in ESE? To gather
knowledge and wisdom of enterprise practitioners regarding these questions, a web-based
survey questionnaire was fielded to senior systems engineers, with depth and breadth of
experience leading enterprise scale initiatives.
The results of the survey help focus future research, provide a basis for development
programs for enterprise systems engineers, inform systems engineering curricula in
academic institutes, and help build organizational mechanisms conducive to effective
management of social context challenges in ESE.
The organization of this document is as follows: In Chapter 2, relevant terms in
systems study are reviewed to establish clarity on the research domain; definitions of
systems engineering, enterprise systems engineering and social contexts of enterprise
systems engineering are included; research in the field of ESE is reviewed, and; project
background and project work undertaken prior to this study is discussed. In Chapter 3, the
research context of the method used in this study-a web-based survey questionnaire-is
discussed; pros and cons of various types of survey research methods namely questionnaires,
interviews, and focus groups are presented; the development, design and administration of
the survey is explained, and; the methods used for data analysis are discussed. In Chapter 4,
profile of the survey respondents, findings on the nature and impact of social context
-16
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
challenges in ESE and the effective practices for addressing these challenges are presented.
In Chapter 5, the results of this study are compared and synthesized with the results of an
earlier study (comprising of five case studies) undertaken in this project and relevant
literature; limitations of this study are discussed, and; future research options are explored.
Conclusion and implications of this study are in Chapter 6.
-
17
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
-
18 -
Faaiza Rashid
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
II.
Literature Review and Project Background
The organization of this chapter is as follows: In Section 1 relevant terms in systems
study are reviewed to establish clarity on the research domain.
In Section 2 systems
engineering (SE) is defined. In Section 3 enterprise systems engineering (ESE) is defined.
In Section 4, conceptual developments in the field of ESE are reviewed. In Section 5, the
'social contexts' of ESE is defined. Project background and work undertaken prior to this
study are also described in this section.
11.1 Relevant Terms in Systems Study
To provide clarity on the research domain, I have briefly defined the key terms in
systems study in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Terms in Systems Study
System
A system consists of interacting elements that collectively represent something
greater than the sum of the individual elements (White 2006a).
Systems engineering
(SE)
SE is an iterative and interdisciplinary process that develops operational systems to
meet given requirements (White 2006a).
Traditional systems
engineering (TSE)
Includes engineering of sub-systems, systems and systems-of-systems (Rebovich
2006) but with little focus on non-technical and complex aspects (White 2006a).
System of systems
(SoS) engineering
Develops and optimizes SoS, which is a set of systems that function in
conjunction to achieve what is not achievable by an individual system alone (White
2006a).
Enterprise systems
engineering (ESE)
Develops and optimizes enterprise systems. Enterprise systems are a set of interrelated systems with high dependency on considerations such as people, processes,
and technology. Enterprise systems have imprecise boundaries and have attributes
such as emergent behavior, non-determinism, and environmental dependencies
(Adapted from Swarz and DeRosa 2006).
Complex systems
(CS)
Are composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit properties not
obvious from the properties of the parts (Adapted from Sterman 2000).
Complex adaptive
systems (CAS)
Are a special case of CS where the system has the capability to learn and change
(Adapted from John H. Holland et al. at Santa Fe Institute).
Socio-technical
systems (STS)
Refers to an interconnected system of people, technology and their environment
engaged in goal directed behavior. STS theory proposes principles (such as
responsible autonomy, adaptability) that develop relationships between socio and
technical elements of a system that lead to productivity (Trist and Bamforth 1951;
Emery and Trist 1960; Carvajal 1983; Badham, Clegg et al. 2000).
-
19 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The key takeaway from Table 1 is that ESE differs from other types of systems
engineering due to its emergent behavior, non-determinism, strong dependency on nontechnical aspects (such as people) and on the system environment. ESE is similar to
complex systems and complex adaptive systems due to its inter-connectedness and
emergent behavior.
ESE is similar to socio-technical systems (STS) in terms of
interconnectedness of people, technology and environment and therefore, socio-technical
systems theory may carry insights for ESE from the perspective of organizational design.
It is important to understand that the underlying principle in STS is that technology alone
will not resolve an organization's performance problems. Investment in technology ought
to accompany investment in organizational processes and people for the overall system to
deliver the desired performance. In ESE, however, details of a technology are not always
clear to fully understand its impact on organizational processes and people.
-
20 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
11.2 Systems Engineering
Everyday we are affected by products of Systems Engineering (SE): Airplanes that
fly across the globe; software that coordinates
airline flights; satellites that monitor weather;
computer chips that process complex electronic
instructions; bridges that span rivers, roads and
valleys. These are just a few products of SE
(Figure 1).
Definition
Over time, various industries and fields
have applied SE principles to their work
Figure 1: Systems Engineering Products
leading to a range of SE definitions (Appendix
Left to right, clockwise: U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting
Falcon, Weather Satellite, Mackinac Bridge,
Computer Chip. Sources: Public domain as work of
the U.S. federal government (2003), The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1994),
Michigan Department of Transportation (2001),
Britannica (2007) respectively.
D). Bahill and Dean developed a definition of
SE from
the
consensus
of hundreds
of
Systems Engineering is an engineering discipline whose responsibility is creating and
executing an interdisciplinary process to ensure that the customer and stakeholder's needs
are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy, cost efficient and schedule compliant manner
throughout a system's entire life cycle (Bahill and Dean July 7-11, 1996).
Through the consensus an outline of seven parallel tasks that characterize the
iterative process of SE were developed. These tasks are state the problem, investigate
alternatives, model the system, integrate, launch the system, assess performance and reevaluate (Figure 2). These tasks are known by the acronym of SIMILAR.
I The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), founded in 1990, is a non-profit
membership organization with over 6000 members that include senior practitioners, technical engineers,
corporate management, students, and academics. Its mission is to advance the discipline and practice of
SE.
-21-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Figure 2: The Parallel and Iterative Processes of Systems Engineering (Bahill and Gissing 1998)
11.3 Enterprise Systems Engineering
Enterprise attributes-complexities, uncertainty, high interdependence between
technical and non-technical system components-are features that characterize many of
today's SE projects. Why is SE evolving into ESE? One reason is that the information
revolution has intensified interactions and interdependencies amongst systems, societies and
organizations, giving rise to greater complexity (Axelrod and Cohen 2000) in many fields,
including SE (Rebovich 2006). The fast pace of technological change today has unleashed
unpredictability especially upon SE projects with long time horizons (10-15 years) in which
requirements for future technological systems have to be defined with the knowledge of
today. While project requirements, environment, and stakeholders used to be relatively
stable in traditional systems engineering (TSE), projects now evolve significantly (as
uncertainties unfold and new knowledge becomes available) requiring continuous
coordination and collaboration amongst the project components (both technical and nontechnical).
Evolutionary and emergent in nature (Rebovich 2006), ESE is still a developing
field in theory but has become frequently recurrent in national and international SE
endeavors of immense national and global significance. Examples of ESE projects include
the Global Information Grid (GIG), National Airspace System, and Department of
Homeland Security's Secure Border Initiative system.
Definition
Just like the definitions of SE vary, definitions of ESE vary, (Table 2) although
unlike SE no consensus has been achieved on ESE definitions. ESE has been defined as an
entity with complex behavior patterns (Swarz and DeRosa 2006), as a multidisciplinary
-22
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
approach that integrates systems engineering and strategic management (Johns Hopkins
University 2007), and as a highly integrated system comprising of interdependent social,
technical, and infrastructural dimensions and exhibiting system properties and soft
emergent values arising from the human dimension of an enterprise (Nightingale and
Rhodes 2004).
Table 2: Definitions of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Swarz and
DeRosa
Johns Hopkins
University
Nightingale
and Rhodes
"We consider an enterprise to be a collection of systems whose operational
capabilities are inextricably intertwined with considerations of people, processes, and
technology, whose boundaries are often imprecise, and which can often be
characterized by a set of special, additional properties, such as emergent behavior,
non-determinism, and environmental dependencies" (Swarz and DeRosa 2006, p. 3).
"Enterprise Systems Engineering is a multidisciplinary approach combining systems
engineering and strategic management to address: methods and approaches for
aligning system architectures with enterprise business rules and the underlying IT
architecture; development and implementation consistent with enterprise strategic
objectives; and the total enterprise system and capabilities, with diverse complex
subsystems" (Johns Hopkins University 2007).
"Enterprises are complex, highly integrated systems comprised of processes,
organizations, information and supporting technologies, with multifaceted
interdependencies and interrelationships across their boundaries. Understanding,
engineering, and managing these complex social, technical, and infrastructure
dimensions are critical to achieving and sustaining enterprise performance"
(Nightingale and Rhodes 2004, p. 1).
"The enterprises of this century are truly systems in themselves and as such the
properties and design issues for complex systems also relate to complex enterprises.
The properties take two forms: (1) system properties and (2) soft emergent values.
System properties are those that may be selectively targeted and may involve trade-off
decisions which will optimize one or more of these properties over others. They may
include: sustainability, scalability, flexibility, agility, stability, adaptability,
robustness, and others. The second type, 'soft properties', are emergent values or
qualities which are unique to enterprise systems as they extend from the human
dimension inherent in the enterprise system. These may, in fact, serve as leading
indicators of enterprise excellence (or possible failure). These properties include trust
(or distrust), conviction, loyalty, and others. Another very interesting emergent quality
is enterprise intelligence -- intelligence not just of the people, but the emergent
intelligence of the people with enacted processes and aligned enabling technologies"
(Nightingale and Rhodes 2004, p. 9).
-
23 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Synthesizing and developing these definitions, an enterprise can be understood as a
complex system with interconnected components, both technical and non-technical, with
some overall common purpose and a highly evolving path arising from internal and external
change; to cope with its attributes, an enterprise must learn, adapt and apply multidisciplinary knowledge.
Is ESE Different from TSE?
Enterprise systems engineering (ESE) and traditional systems engineering (TSE)
partially overlap, but also bifurcate in some
areas (Figure 3, White 2006a).
ESE goals still requires the big-picture
ESE
TSE
Meeting
mindset
of TSE.
Nevertheless,
new
ESE is complementary to TSE
approaches are needed (MITRE 2008) to
ESE involves something
address increasing complexity, environmental
in addition to TSE,
dependence and multi-disciplinary issues of
and some TSE methods
do not apply
Figure 3: ESE Complements TSE
(White 2006a, p.2)
ESE projects. TSE usually has a hierarchical
composition (Norman and Kuras 2004;
White 2005)
which is not the case in ESE.
TSE uses linear systems analysis, starts with specifications that are predictions engineered
to be proven correct, and often has separately engineered subsystems built to stand alone
(Norman and Kuras 2004; White 2005). ESE exhibits non-linearity, has specifications
that are unstable at best and unknown at worst and its subsystems need to be developed at
least somewhat collaboratively. TSE develops solutions in two steps-functionality and
then
implementation
where
developmental
tests
are
planned
independently
of
implementation (Norman and Kuras 2004; White 2005). ESE cannot afford to do this
because
the
implementation
environment
significantly
affects
the
functionality
requirements. Since the implementation environment may change in significant ways,
successful ESE requires staying abreast with the implementation environment.
these differences, ESE demands from systems
- 24 -
Due to
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
F
Faaiza
Rashid
engineers the abilities to: 1) take advantage of emergent capabilities as the enterprise
evolves and factors such as technology and the user base unfold; 2) effectively manage the
unpredictability and non-deterministic ways of an enterprise; and 3) understand and adapt
to the environmental dependencies of an enterprise (such as people, organizations),
processes (such as governance and standards), and technology (Swarz and DeRosa 2006).
Despite the need for new approaches and skills, it is important to not think of TSE
and ESE as two distinct disciplines. ESE emanates from TSE. ESE and TSE are part of
a continuum. This concept is illustrated by Dr. Renee Stevens at MITRE (Figure 4) vis-avis the ESE Profiler (Stevens 2006).
System
Strategic
~.
e-
benhueavvsauhoit
\
Context
Cotx
-
Systems engineering
across
sysemprora
boudaie
boundaries
Work across
Figure 4: The Enterprise Systems Engineering Profiler from (White 2006b, p.10) citing (Stevens 2006)
The ESE Profiler provides a framework for understanding the nature of a system
along four dimensions: strategic, implementation, stakeholder, and system behavior.
Depending on how a system maps onto the four quadrants, the Profiler shows how a given
project's context can be part TSE and part ESE (Stevens 2006). Figure 4 shows a sample
profie of a project where the system context is TSE, implementation context is ESE, and
the strategic and stakeholder context is in middle of the TSE-ESE continuum.
- 25 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Are Enterprises Different from Traditional Organizations?
Enterprises differ from traditional organizations in structure, operation and goals.
Unlike traditional organizations that are hierarchical (Roth 2007) enterprises have loose
boundaries, intertwined operational capabilities and attributes of emergence, nondeterminism and high inter-dependence (Swarz and DeRosa 2006). Combined with a lack
of single hierarchical control authority, (Crider and DeRosa 2007), enterprises break the
assumptions that underlie traditional organizational theory and practice (Figure 5).
MOVING FROM THE PAST
TOWARDS THE FUTURE
(vertically integrated) organizations
(networked) enterprises
Figure 5: Comparison of Vertically Integrated Organizations and Networked Enterprises (Roth 2007, p.9)
Disciplinary Foundations of ESE
Foundations of ESE derive from five leading disciplines: 1) Complexity theory
(complex adaptive systems): enterprise systems are comprised of people, processes and
technologies that interact in dynamic ways leading to emergent features (that include risks
and opportunities).
In order to harness the complexity of enterprises, ESE needs to
understand the leverage points in its complex adaptive system (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000;
Boiney et al. 2006). Due to the uncertain and evolutionary nature of enterprises, insights
from complex adaptive systems applied to ESE show that variation, interaction and
selection can provide a guiding framework for managing the complexity of enterprises.
Effective management of variation entails creating the right balance between variety and
uniformity in a system. Managing interaction means determining who (or what) connects
with who (or what) and when. Engaging in selection means preserving (and proliferating)
4 Based on the seminal work done by Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen (Axelrod and Cohen 2000) as cited in
(Rebovich 2006)
-26-
Faaiza Rashid
and Political Challenges of Enterprise SytmEnierg
gh
O-anizational
the positive in the enterprise and removing the detrimental (Rebovich 2006). 2) Social
science and social network theory:
for enterprises it is pertinent to understand the
dynamics of team collaboration, distributed decision-making, information sharing, trust
formation, and the development of shared situational awareness.
People rarely work in
seclusion; therefore, social and cultural barriers ought to be removed for they hinder
effective cooperation. 3) Cognitive science: since in an enterprise people are often the
decision-makers, it is pertinent to understand human decision-making and cognitive
strategies, biases,
mechanisms
performance limits.
to build and maintain
situational awareness,
and
ESE should provide supportive systems and infrastructure to aid
decision-making needed to achieve enterprise goals. 4) Information science: to generate,
manage and exploit information in enterprises, it is pertinent to understand how to leverage
information technology (Cabana, Boiney et al. 2006). 5) Strategic management: since the
enterprise components must work in synergy to achieve their collective strategic objectives,
it is pertinent to understand how system architectures align with enterprise business
principles (Johns Hopkins University 2007).
11.4 Research in the Field of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Academics and practitioners are working towards developing the field of ESE.
Academics are developing courses and training by synthesizing the knowledge of disciplines
such as systems engineering and management. At Johns Hopkins University's Engineering
and Applied Science Programs for Professionals, a course titled Enterprise Systems
Engineering addresses
complexity and interdependence
of technical
and business
components of enterprises. The course uses a systems engineering life-cycle framework to
link outcome-based engineering analysis and decision-making with enterprise strategic
objective. It also includes methods and tools for complexity management, effectiveness
measurement, and return on investment (ROI) assessment from an engineering perspective
(Johns Hopkins University 2007). At MIT's Engineering Systems Division (ESD) Dr.
Deborah Nightingale developed the course Integrating the Lean Enterprisewhich uses lean
-
27 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
principles5 and practices to focus on the practical aspects of managing and transforming
enterprises. In 2004, MIT's ESD piloted a doctoral course on the evolution of enterprise
systems architecting, both as an art and as a science (Nightingale and Rhodes 2004).
MITRE, a leading practitioner in the field of systems engineering, has initiated
research collaborations with MIT, Johns Hopkins, University of Vermont, The University
of California at San Diego, (UCSD), Stevens Institute, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), INCOSE and the New England Complex Systems
Institute (Crider and DeRosa 2007). MITRE has also published extensively on enterprise
issues, including a nine volume 6 report that examines the foundational blocks of ESE and
explores a range of issues from complex characteristics and behaviors of enterprises to
enterprise architecture and processes (Rebovich 2006).
ESE Processes
DeRosa, Swarz, and Rebovich (2006) at MITRE propose five ESE processes that
shape the evolution of an enterprise and maintain a balance between effectiveness and
efficiency: 1) Technology Planning which entails staying abreast with trends in the
commercial marketplace and reserach community and developing optimal technical
solutions to acheive a functional objective.
2) Capabilities-Based Engineering (CBE)
Analysis which is a technical framework that takes a big-picture, enterprise wide
perspective rather than a Program perspective. CBE analysis selects 'winning options' by
examining evolution strategies, assessing enterprise impacts, selecting concepts and
alternatives and developing a portfolio roadmap. 3) Enterprise Architecture (EA) which
offers the most big picture perspective to an enterprise. It captures the inter-relatedness of
enterprise components, and guides enterprise vision, strategy and implementation. 4)
5 The lean principles broadly are responsiveness to change and minimization of waste (Lean Advancement
Initiative - LAI, MIT, 2008).
6 The titles of the nine volumes are as follows: 1) Enterprise Characteristics and Challenges, 2) Systems
Thinking (New and Emerging Perspectives), 3) Enterprise Architecture (Application Across the ESE
Spectrum), 4) Enterprise Management (Processes to Bridge Theory and Practice), 5) Enterprise
Opportunity and Risk, 6) Enterprise Activities (Evolving Toward an Enterprise), 7) Enterprise Analysis
and Assessment, 8) Capabilities-Based Planning Analysis, 9) Enterprise Research and Development (Agile
Functionality for Decision Superiority) (Rebovich 2006)
-28-
.......
....
..
..
........
..........
...
............
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
. ..
.............. . .
Faaiza Rashid
Strategic Technical Planning (STP) which addresses organizational and management
issues in an enterprise. A key feature of STP is that it ought to be simple (as opposed to
being functionally detailed in traditional system planning) to promote enterprise
understanding and acceptance amongst a wide audience. 5) Enterprise Assessment and
Analysis (EA&A) which is the learning and control mechanism of an enterprise. EA&A
monitors the progress within an enterprise towards its vision and in doing so helps identify
opportunities and risk.
EA&A also communicates the technical dimensions of an
enterprise to inform business decisions. EA&A does not monitor the enterprise in its
entirety at once but instead captures the behavior of its various entities.
These five ESE processes interact with business processes (Gharajedaghi 1999) and
TSE processes (Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)-632) for the overall management of
an enterprise (Figure 6) (DeRosa, Rebovich et al. 2006).
Figure 6: Business, ESE and TSE Processes (DeRosa, Rebovich et al. 2006, p.4)
-29-
. ....
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Dr. Nightingale (2003) at MIT has proposed three processes for Enterprise
Systems Architecting (EAS) where the definition of EAS7 significantly overlaps with
MITRE's definition of ESE.
Dr. Nightingale asserts that the traditional 'reductionist'
approach to complex systems is not applicable to enterprises and proposes three enterprise
architecture processes that must be considered in parallel: 1) Life-cycle Processes which
encompass the entire enterprise life-cycle from conception, design and development to
production and operation. This provides an overarching product life-cycle overview to an
enterprise versus the traditionally more isolated sub-optimization of each function around
its operation. Life-cycle processes include business acquisition, program management,
requirements definition, product and process development, supply chain management,
production, and distribution and support. 2) Enabling Infrastructure Processes support
life-cycle processes and leadership processes. These are easily overlooked since they enable
other processes and indirectly contribute to enterprise success. Enabling infrastructure
processes include finance, information technology, human resources, quality assurance,
facilities and services, environment, health and safety. 3) Enterprise Leadership Processes
span the entire enterprise and provide leadership that guides the enterprise. These processes
include strategic planning and partnering, business models, growth management,
organizational structure and integration and transformation management (Nightingale
2003).
Issue-specific Work in ESE
Research has also been initiated on specific attributes of ESE such as uncertainty,
dimensions of enterprise architecture, and so forth. White (2006b) suggests that since
ESE faces significantly higher uncertainty than TSE, following TSE's somewhat singular
focus on risk management can run an enterprise into the risk of not pursuing its emerging
7 "Enterprise Systems Architecting (EAS) is a new strategic approach which takes a systems perspective,
viewing the entire enterprise as a holistic system encompassing multiple views such as organization view,
process view, knowledge view, and enabling information technology view in an integrated framework"
(Nightingale and Rhodes 2004, p. 1).
-
30 -
..
...................................................
..
- .......................
.........
.. "..11
,- -......
.
The Oreanizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
opportunities. ESE must aggressively pursue opportunities while managing risks (White
2006b). Roberts (2006) states that since enterprises constantly face diversity, in testing and
analysis it is less useful to show that an enterprise works for a given scenario and it is more
useful to show that the enterprise will remain healthy through constant diversity (Roberts
2006).
Regarding
information flow in enterprises,
a combination of information
generation, information management, and information exploitation has been proposed to
achieve the information flow necessary for effective and efficient decision-making (Figure
7). Information generation gathers the right information in an enterprise -for
an
enterprise it must be recognized that any entity that observes can serve as a data generator.
Information management provides the infrastructure that helps the information generated
get to the 'right people' in time. Information exploitation processes information to make
the 'right decision' (Cabana, Boiney et al. 2006).
exploitation
hierarchy
generatio
management
information flow (first order)
Figure 7: Enterprises Need Information Generation, Management and
Exploitation (Cabana, Boiney et al. 2006, p.23)
Research has also focused on enterprise architecture and its potential to serve as a
coordination and communication tool across diverse stakeholders (Blevins 2006).
Enterprise architecture, referred to as the most big picture perspective of an enterprise
(DeRosa, Rebovich et al. 2006), depicts the structure of enterprise components and their
-31-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
interrelationships and the principles that govern their design and evolution (Joint Chief of
Staff 2005; Blevins 2006). Architectures can ensure that requirements are well articulated
and consistently incorporated to engage contractors and developers in the tendering
process, enhance clarity on requirements and help keep solution delivery on time and within
budgets. The clear articulation of requirements can help governance organizations be
clearer on relevant regulations and codification of standards for a given architecture. By
clearly depicting the components of a solution and their roles, architectures can help make
better acquisition decisions. Architectures can also help sell components by clearly and
concisely depicting the components' role and value in the overall system (Blevins 2006).
11.5 Social Contexts of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Research in ESE (as overviewed in the previous sections) has mostly focused on
defining ESE attributes and processes, but none has entirely focused on the social context
challenges of ESE. In this section, the 'social contexts' of ESE is defmed, background on
the Social Contexts ofEnterprise Systems Engineering(SCESE) project is provided and work
undertaken in the SCESE project prior to this study is reviewed.
Definition
Enterprises are comprised of multiple powerful stakeholders (suppliers, sponsors,
customers, users) with competing interests who have to coordinate and collaborate.
Lacking a stable, single control authority, enterprises often have contestable decisionmaking and governance domains8 . Therefore, ESE projects frequently evolve in somewhat
unpredictable ways due, in part, to their multiple end users and multiple stakeholder
organizations. These drivers of unpredictability define the 'social contexts' of ESE, and
include organizational and political challenges that are usually very difficult to overcome.'
8 Adapted from Social Contexts ofEnterpriseSystems EngineeringTier 1 case studies, MITRE, 2007.
This definition was developed in collaboration with Dr. John Carroll, MIT and Dr. John Boiney,
MITRE.
9
-32
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Project Background
Currently, there is neither a theory nor a set of best practices to successfully manage
enterprise scale initiatives in systems engineering. Consequently, MITRE 0 , not-for-profit
Federally-Funded Research and Development Center and a leader in systems engineering,
established an ESE Focus Group in October 2004. This Focus Group conducted a set of
case studies. One of the conclusions from these case studies was that ESE required new
socio-cultural skills such as strategic envisioning, conflict management, and coalition
building (Crider and DeRosa 2007).
Besides this ESE Focus Group, MITRE initiated multiple collaborative research
efforts with institutes and organizations including MIT's Engineering Systems Division
(ESD). The MIT-MITRE collaboration comprises four joint research projects: one on the
social contexts of ESE, two on real options regarding engineering design and financial
aspects of ESE, and one on dynamic modeling and simulation of enterprises. This study is
part of the joint project on the Social Contexts ofEnterprise Systems Engineering (SCESE)
(Brooks 2007).
SCESE Case Studies
Prior to this study, the SCESE project had focused on generating five case studies
of enterprise scale initiatives. The purpose of the case studies was to gather the experience
and wisdom of enterprise practitioners. The case studies were developed via a small set of
in-depth interviews with technological practitioners at the front lines of enterprise
operations.
The results were analyzed with respect to organizational literature and
10 MITRE Corporation is a non-profit private corporation that partners with the U.S. government to
address issues of critical national importance. MITRE's key areas of expertise are systems engineering
(SE), information technology, operational concepts, and enterprise modernization. MITRE has vast
experience in SE projects, for example: FAA's Capstone program in Alaska, Enterprise modernization
programs at agencies such as the Internal Revenue Services (IRS). MITRE was formed in 1958 to provide
SE and ongoing support for Semi-Automated Ground Environment (SAGE)-a multi-billion dollar,
Today MITRE manages three Federally Funded Research and
continental air defense system.
Development Centers (FFRDCs) namely Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence for DoD,
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development for the FAA and the Center for Enterprise
Modernization for the IRS. MITRE also has an independent research and development program
(MITRE, 2008).
- 33 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
tools/insights of MIT/ESD's Lean Aerospace Initiative (Brooks 2007). These case studies
are not named or discussed here due to confidentiality concerns, but they bring to light
social context challenges recurrently faced by enterprise systems engineers:
1) Changing technology and changing customer needs.
2) Changing organizational leadership where programs are started but then handed over to
the new leader who comes in with a new set of goals and objectives.
3) Satisfying diverse and competing needs of customer segments. Absence of a single
hierarchically organized customer as in traditional systems engineering.
4) Lack of a single decision-making entity that can mediate differences and provide final
decisions.
5) Competing organizational interests and variations in organizational processes and
culture where standardization is resisted by those that would have to undergo
adjustments and changes under the new standards.
6) Improving enterprise efficiency and effectiveness and generating organizational
coordination without bottom line metrics.
7) Continued use of outdated processes such as long-range planning and budgeting for
fast evolving enterprises. When the use of these outdated processes is legally mandated,
engineers are left with no choice but to follow these processes.
8) Tension between long term (R&D, innovation) and short term (current operational
needs) organizational efforts (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008).
Since these findings are based on five case studies, a need emerged to complement
these findings with a study that spans over a wider sample of senior systems engineers.
Therefore, this study was undertaken. A web-based survey questionnaire was developed to
gather the wisdom and knowledge of senior systems engineers with experience in ESE
projects. The research methods used in this study and details on the design of the survey
questionnaire are discussed in the following chapter.
-
34 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
'The golden rule is that there are no golden rules."
"The reasonable man adaptshimselfto the world; the unreasonableone persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself Therefore, allprogress depends on the unreasonableman."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), critic, playwright and poet
III. Research Method
The organization of this chapter is as follows: In Section 1, the research context of
the method (web-based survey questionnaire) used in this study and the pros and cons of
various types of survey research methods (questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups) are
presented.
In Section 2, the development, design and administration of the survey is
explained.
In Section 3, the methods used for data analysis are detailed.
Section 4
concludes this chapter.
III.1 Research Context and Comparison of Survey Methods
Research on the social contexts of ESE is in an exploratory stage. While various
data collection methods exists, each comes with its pros and cons and therefore may
provide valuable yet partial insights into the dynamics of social issues in enterprises (Table
3). Wide-ranging information about the subject is more likely to be a product of multiple
data collecting methodologies rather than a stand alone, single method.
Web-based survey questionnaire method was chosen for this study because it had
the benefit of gathering data from a relatively large number of respondents (N = 47
respondents) in a short time (eight business days)" while posing relatively low cost in terms
of time and distribution. Conducting in-depth interviews with forty-seven interviewees is
likely to take longer than eight business days due to scheduling conflicts and participant
availability. Also, statistical analysis of quantifiable survey results helps reveal aggregate
behavior, while focus groups or a case study tends to reveal context-based, qualitative data.
Both types of insights are needed for advancement of theory and practice.
" The survey questionnaire was administered between February 25, 2008 and March 25, 2008.
candidates were invited to participate, 47 responded for an overall response rate of 76 percent.
- 35 -
62
.
.
......
...
..........
.......................
..
....
....
. ..............
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Table 3. Pros and Cons of Survey Methods (Aldridge and Levine 2001; Fink 2005)
Pros
Cons
- Great for pre-testing initial ideas
- Great for post-testing of preliminary
findings
- Helps generate and explore ideas and
concepts
- Can help participants with questions or
unfamiliar words
- Can help understand how participants
are interpreting discussion topics and
questions
Helps with formal survey development
o No anonymity this may make participants
hesitant to share information, especially in the
presence of one's supervisor(s)
* May carry moderator's bias
- Cannot necessarily generalize the findings to
the population
- Have to coordinate participant schedules
A large number of participants could hinder
effective discussion
- May carry groupthink bias
h
Focus Groups
Face-to-Face Interviews
hTime
consuming
- Lacks anonymity and may make interviewees
hesitant to share information
rsonet
both verbal and non- Has interviewer bias,
A
verbal
Can help interviewee with questions on
unfamiliar words
* Can explore answers and interpretations
-IHelpsawith formalnesurvedvelpmenttoo-st
with respondents
Allows the interviewer to generate more
qualitative data
On-the-Spot Questionnaire
Web-based Questionnaie
Need reliable Internet access
Cannot explore answers with respondents
Need hosting software and in-house
programmer
Must ensure data back up
Wider sample reach with limited costs
- Maintains anonymity
Easy pilot testing and data exportation
e Can provide respondents with links for
additional information
111.2 Survey Design and Administration
Before designing the survey We 12 ensured that the survey questionnaire was not
duplicating any past efforts on the subject.
One prior survey assessed system engineers'
understanding of differences and similarities in traditional systems engineering and ESE
(White 2006a). No surveys on the social contexts of ESE were found.
We through out this chapter refers to Dr. John S. Caroll from MIT, Dr. John Boiney from MITRE,
and Faaiza Rashid, MIT.
12
-
36
-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Design
The survey questionnaire" was developed in consultation with Dr. John S. Carroll
at MIT and Dr. John Boiney at MITRE.
Valuable input was provided by MITRE
management, senior systems engineers, and ESE researchers. The SCESE case studies
provided a starting point to gather emerging themes and any preliminary hypotheses on the
social context challenges in ESE.
The initial draft of the survey questionnaire asked
respondents to think of two fairly recent, complex and novel ESE projects, one with a
successful and other with a disappointing outcome. Respondents would then evaluate the
outcomes (that is the nature of project's success and failure), the use of SE tools and
approaches, and beneficial and detrimental practices in the two projects.
Finally, the
respondents would holistically think of their systems engineering experience and discuss
what works and what does not work in the effective management of complex, enterprise
scale projects.
The survey would be anonymous, and project specific questions would
include project size and complexity, but nothing specific that risks revealing project or
respondent identity.
Between October and December 2007, the survey instrument underwent revision
based on the input of senior systems engineers and ESE researchers at MITRE. The
feedback on the survey ranged from word choice, specificity and length.
Using this
feedback we eliminated as many vague terms as possible and replaced them with words that
would hold significance in a day-to-day conversation of a systems engineer. The SCESE
case studies were beneficial to that end. I back checked the language used in the survey
questionnaire with words used by interviewees in SCESE case studies. Anything that was
too project specific and risked anonymity was generalized accordingly.
Concerns were
expressed about length of the survey as well. Therefore, we decided to develop two versions
of the survey each asking the same questions, but one about a successful project and the
other about a project that did not go well. The distribution of the two versions amongst the
respondents was to be random.
" I referred to Survey Research Methods by Earl R. Babbie during the design phase of the survey. This
book provides a great overview of survey methods in social sciences. Full citation: Babbie, E. R. (1973).
Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc.
- 37 -
......
...
..
....
..
...
....
..................
......
............
. ........
Faaiza Rashid
TeOganizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
After adjustments and a few internal revisions, the survey was beta-tested. Overall
feedback during beta-testing varied from "the survey is a good idea, but some questions
have to be modified" to a few individuals commenting that the survey is not the best
instrument to conduct this type of research. The main concern expressed regarding the
reliability of the survey was that if the data gathered from the survey is placed out of
context it can result in misleading findings. We thought this was a valid concern that
ought to be considered during the analysis of the results; however this concern could be
raised about any research method. It was also suggested that we do focus groups instead of
a survey questionnaire. Focus groups were a valid option, except that they would be time
consuming and not reach nearly as many respondents as we were hoping to reach (at least
40). Further, focus groups would generate more qualitative data and we wanted to gather
both quantitative and qualitative data. The feedback specific to the content of the survey
questionnaire was centered on the focus and language of the survey questionnaire (Figure
8).
Feedback from Survey Beta-testing
- Be explicit: Define what you mean by ESE to avoid
confusion
- Focus on Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE)
instead of Traditional, Complex, or System of
Systems Engineering
- Focus on the'Social Contexts'of ESE
* Length: The survey at its given length will certainly
take longer than 30 minutes and possibly even
longer than 45 minutes
Figure 8: Feedback on SCESE Survey Questionnaire from Beta-testing
and Discussions
One of the main
feedbacks on the content of
the survey was to get the
right
terms
and
well
defined. It was pointed out
that
terms
Enterprise
Engineering,
Systems
Complex
Engineering,
such
as
Systems
Traditional
Engineering,
Systems
System
of
Systems Engineering all differed significantly in systems engineering community and the
survey questionnaire should not create confusion for the respondents by asking respondents
to broadly discuss complex projects. It was suggested that we define ESE in the survey
upfront. Another key comment was focusing on the social context challenges. The survey
- 38 -
_ 11
............
. ...
.
.......................
..
......
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
..
....
....
..
....
.
.............
.....
Faaiza Rashid
questionnaire should in some manner spell out the boundaries and meaning of social
contexts in ESE. Concerns of length were also expressed.
From this feedback we decided to re-scope the survey. We developed a list of key
issues that would be valuable to gather data on. It was important to test whether
respondents even considered the social context challenges important to ESE success.
Assuming the respondents consider social contexts meaningful in ESE projects, so what?
What can be done about it? So we included questions on effective practices to manage the
social context challenges in ESE. In order to suggest effective practices, it was necessary to
first diagnose which social context challenges were most frequent and problematic in ESE.
The new version of the survey was discussed internally and our key concerns on the specific
questions are summarized in Figure 9.
Concerns with Re-scoping Questions
1) Is social context meaningful?
- Most respondents may say, "It depends."
- Respondents may find it tough to evaluate the importance of social contexts
through the various stages of a given project's life-cycle.
2) Diagnosis of the problem of social context
" Those who are clear about the types of social context problems may not find
value in reiterating the obvious.
" Those who are not clear about the types of social context problems may
need some cue to get started.
3) Effective practices for managing social context challenges
- Respondents may find it problematic to offer effective practices without
some prior scoping of the social context problems in the survey
questionnaire.
Figure 9: Concerns with Survey Re-scoping Questions
A key concern was if the question about the importance of social context issues in
ESE were left open-ended, then respondents may give indecisive answers. The answers are
more likely to be indecisive if respondents were thinking of one specific project given that
ESE projects often have multiple stages during which the social contexts may vary. One
way to deal with this concern was to move away from a single project approach to
-39-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
gathering data on the overall enterprise experiences of the respondents.
This approach
would also help gauge the wider experiences of senior systems engineering community
regarding social context issues in ESE.
The level of open-endedness in diagnostic questions raised concerns. There may be
some respondents who may have a very clear understanding of which social context
challenges are most frequent and problematic. Other respondents may be less sure, and
may experience difficulty in answering this question without some examples of social
context challenges in ESE. To mitigate this concern, we decided to explore having a mix
of closed and open-ended questions on the diagnoses of social context problems in ESE.
One option was to provide respondents with a list of social context dimensions that they
could rank or evaluate.
Another option was to give a few examples, and then allow
respondents to come up with their own list of social context challenges.
The latter
approach would avoid limiting the respondents to our list of social context challenges in
ESE. In the end we decided to do both. We offered a list of social context challenges that
respondents could modify if needed.
This list was followed by a question asking the
respondent to discuss the top three challenges critical to the success of ESE projects. If the
question on the importance of social context challenges and the diagnosis of the problems
in social context challenges were set appropriately, we concluded that our concerns with the
questions on effective practices would be mitigated.
The result of the re-scoping of the SCESE survey was that we moved away from a
single project approach to respondents' overall experience with ESE projects.
It was
suggested that with the generic approach it should be specified whether the focus of a given
question is ESE practice in general or MITRE's practice of ESE. This suggestion was
incorporated subsequently.
Respondents were not limited to the list of social context
challenges provided in the survey as they could modify the list. Another result of these
discussions was that we ensured the answer choices in the survey questionnaire were
comprehensive to avoid the "It depends" response. And lastly, these discussions convinced
us that if respondents were uneasy expressing their evaluations in a survey format, they
should have an opportunity to volunteer their information for follow up discussions.
-
40 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The resulting drafts of the survey questionnaire were beta-tested and generally
approved. We specifically wanted feedback on the social context challenges listed in the
survey. The social context challenges were developed mostly from the themes (see page
30-31 of this study) that emerged in the SCESE case studies: achieving consensus among
stakeholders, dealing with conflict, responding effectively to uncertainty and change as
projects and operational environments evolve, and dealing with organizational and process
factors.
Since the complexity management literature puts communication (McMillan
2000; Dooley 2002; Levine and Regine 2002; Lissack 2002 a, b; Prusak 2002; Schultz
2002; Snowden 2002; Tasaka 2002; Wood 2002) and relationships (Dooley 2002; Levine
and Regine 2002; Senge 2002; Wood 2002; Kelly 2004) at the forefront of effective
management of complex systems, we included communication and building effective
relationships in the list of social context challenges.
Two challenges namely exerting
influence on non-MITRE stakeholders and drawing on and enhancing MITRE's
reputation were also added to the list to assess if any of the critical social context challenges
were MITRE specific. Feedback on our list of social context challenges was positive.
Administration
During the development phase of the survey questionnaire both MIT and MITRE
gained Institutional Review Board clearance. At MIT this clearance was gained through
Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects (COUHES).
I was not
directly involved with IRB clearance from MITRE, but was informed of the approval in
November, 2007.
During the beta-testing and discussions, we had requested leaders of the MITRE
Centers to identify candidate respondents. The nominations were needed to ensure that
respondents had experience with ESE projects. Sixty-two candidates were identified and
received an email invitation to participate from their corresponding Center head. The
invitation email is included in Appendix A. Respondents were offered to charge an account
code for the time it takes to fill the survey.
We fine tuned and finalized the survey by the end of January 2008. By February
20, 2008 we had identified our target audience and also coded the survey to upload on the
-
41 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
MITRE intranet. During the coding we ensured that the survey had ease of usability,
minimal annoyance factor and clear and user-friendly appearance. The final SCESE survey
questionnaire and the invitation email sent to the nominated candidates is attached in
Appendix A.
The survey was fielded from February 25 - March 5, 2008. We were hoping for
forty completed surveys for a return rate of about 65 percent. We were delighted to have
surpassed our anticipated return rate by March 5, 2008 with forty-seven completed surveys.
111.3 Methods for Data Analysis
The survey results were collected electronically through MITRE intranet. Once the
data was scrubbed and approved for release by senior management at MITRE, I received
survey results in a Microsoft Excel file. Upon inquiry, I was told that very little had been
scrubbed from the original data and none of the forty-seven respondent's survey result had
to be completely classified.
Analysis of Responses to Closed-ended Questions
The numbering on the questions refers to the numbering on the survey attached in
Appendix A. Section I Responses: Closed ended questions with discrete, non-continuous
answer options (Q1, Q2,
Q7,
Q8) were each assigned a number in Microsoft Excel
worksheet.
Section II Responses: Closed ended questions with a range as an answer option were
also coded. Based on the cell count some of categories were combined for analysis (Q2
categories: less than 10, 11-20, over 20 years and Q3 categories: less than 10, 11-15, over
15 years). Q4 responses were also categorized (less than 10, 11-20 and over 20 projects)
and coded in Microsoft Excel. The responses were then exported into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Base 16.0.14 Descriptive statistics and charts were
Even though SPSS analyzes data with little to no computation from the end user, it is critical to have a
thorough understanding of the statistical method performed on the data. An excellent source on
understanding statistical methods is: DeGroot, M. H. and M. J. Schervish (2002). Probability and
Statistics. 3rd ed., Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley
14
- 42 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
produced using the raw data. The following analysis was also performed on the data using
SPSS.
(i) Pearson chi-square tests determine whether various categories of respondents
differed in their answers. For example, the tests can determine whether respondents with
more than 15 years of experience are as likely as respondents with 6-10, or 0-5 years of
experience to think that social context challenges have become more difficult. The logic
behind chi-square test is simple: it assumes the null hypothesis. That is, it assumes there is
no association between two variables. It then tests the likelihood that the reported
association could be because of normal sampling error (Babbie 1973). For a given
measured distribution of values, the chi-square test computes the expected conjoint
distribution for no relationship between the two variables. This results in a set of expected
frequencies for the contingency tables. After comparing the set of expected distribution
with the measured distribution, the chi-square test determines whether the discrepancy
could only be because of sampling error (DeGroot and Schervish 2002). If the reported
association is unlikely to be because of sampling error, then an association between the two
variables is presumed to exist (Babbie 1973). A requirement for the test is that the
categories considered must be mutually exclusive and have total probability of 1 (DeGroot
and Schervish 2002).
The chi-square test also measures the level of significance of the analysis. Level of
significance is the probability that the measured association is a result of sampling error.
0.05, 0.01, 0.001 are three levels of significance often used in survey analysis.
They
represent the likelihood that the measured association because of sampling error is 5/100,
1/100, 1/1000 respectively.
Often survey analysts will specify the level of significance
sufficient to discount the null hypothesis for their results. Other times survey analysts will
choose to report the specific level of significance (Babbie 1973). In my analysis, the level of
significance that I will regard as sufficient to discount the null hypothesis is 0.05.
(ii) Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient: The closed ended questions in the
SCESE survey questionnaire (Section I: Q1, Q2
were cross tabulated.
Q7,
and Q8; Section II: Q2,
Q3, Q4)
Cross tabulation shows the joint distribution of two or more
variables. To test the strength of associations of cross tabulation, a rank order correlation
-
43 -
The Orgranizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
analysis was performed.
Faaiza Rashid
Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient was chosen.
If the
association between the two ordinal rankings is perfect the coefficient value is 1. If the
association between the two ordinal rankings is negatively perfect (that is the ascending
ranking of one variable is perfectly associated with the descending ranking of the other) the
coefficient value is -1. For completely independent ordinal rankings, the coefficient value
is 0. For all other possibilities the coefficient value lies between -1 and 1. There are three
different types of tau that can be chosen for the Kendall coefficient, tau a, b or c. I chose
tau b for square tables, as it is most suitable for such tables. I chose tau c for rectangular
tables, as it is the most suitable for such tables (Abdi 2007). I did not use Spearman rank
correlation because it assumes that the ranks indicate equi-distant positions on the variable
measured.
Analysis of Responses to Open-ended Questions
The open ended questions (Section I: Q3, Q4, and Q5, see survey attached in
Appendix A) were analyzed to extract themes. The list of social context challenges were
coded from 1 to 8 with number 8 assigned to any challenge that the respondents added to
the list of seven social context challenges in the survey. Responses that added a dimension
or nuance to the list were coded as Elaboration. The responses that added a completely
new challenge to the list were coded as New. The coded responses were then counted for
frequency.
Responses for Q5 were qualitatively analyzed.
For a quantitative analysis, key
effective practices proposed for the various social context challenges were highlighted. The
themes were then grouped in various categories and assigned a number. Thereafter, the
frequency for each identified theme was recorded.
111.4 Closing Notes
This chapter outlines my iterative journey from the conception to the final design
of the SCESE survey questionnaire. This journey greatly benefited from the ability to
adapt and from attentive listening to advice and comments from those with greater
experience in navigating the ESE terrains.
-
No one method is the golden method in
44 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
inductive and exploratory research. And secondly, even after choosing the method, it is
essential to let the purpose of research guide the method rather than vice versa. The next
chapter presents the results and analysis of this study.
- 45 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
-
46 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
"Three reasons problems are inevitable;first, we live in a world of growing complexity and
diversity; second, we interact with people; and third, we cannot control all the situation[s] we
face."
John C. Maxwell (1947- ), American author and leadership expert
IV. Results and Analysis
This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 1, the profile of survey respondents
is presented. In Section 2, the importance of social context challenges is discussed. In
Section 3, the critical social context challenges in ESE are presented and in Section 4,
effective practices for addressing these challenges are discussed. In Section 5, the results of
this study are summarized.
IV.1 Survey Population
Respondents collectively represented 31615 SE project lead experiences (Figure 10)
and over 40016 cumulative years of experience leading SE projects (Figure 11). More than
half the respondents had over 11 years of experience as a project lead of SE efforts.
Number of different SE projects led
0-5
6-10
Over 10
No response
Count
Percent
26
11
8
2
55.3%
23.4%
17.0%
4.3%
47
100%
U
Figure 10: Number of Different SE Projects Led by Respondents
Figure 10 shows the number of different SE projects led as intervals (0-5, 6-10, over 10). These ranges
were generated from the raw survey data where respondents reported the exact number of different SE
projects they had led.
16 This is an extremely conservative estimate. The value of respondents' cumulative experience could be as
high as 560 years. The responses for years of experience as a SE project lead were interval based. The value
400 comes from estimating the cumulative experience based on the minimum value of each interval.
1
- 47 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Figure 11: Respondents' Years of Experience as Project Lead for SE Efforts
IV.2 Importance of Social Context Challenges
"This is a crucial topic,"17 asserted one respondent, and an overwhelming majority
of the respondents agreed. Over 70 percent of the respondents considered the effective
management of social context challenges essential to ESE success, with another 20 percent
assessing it to be "very helpful" (Figure 12). Over 65 percent of the respondents reported
that social context challenges have gotten more difficult (Figure 13).
Impact of Social Context Challenges
Count
Percent
Essential to success
34
72.3%
Very helpful
10
21.3%
Somewhat helpful
2
1
4.3%
2.1%
0
0.0%
47
100%
No response
Not necessary for success
Total
3
Figure 12: Impact of Social Context Challenges on ESE Success
Change in Social Context Challenges
Gotten more difficult
Stayed about the same
Gotten more manageable
Total
Count
Percent
31
14
2
66.0%
29.8%
4.3%
47
100%
Figure 13: Change inSocial Context Challenges inESE
7
Quotes from the survey results were not corrected for any grammatical errors.
-
48 -
TeOganizational and Political Challenges of Enterprs
ytm
niern
Faaiza Rashid
Only 15 percent of the respondents reported that technical issues are more
important than social issues (Figure 14).
Over 50 percent of the respondents reported
social context issues to be more important than technical issues. "You can be technically
perfect, but if you can't communicate what you are doing or if your motives are not
trusted--if you can't sell it--to your own team or to the Sponsor, you will fail." "I would say
that addressing the social context enables the right technical issues to be resolved and the
ESE to have the proper focus."
Comparison of Social Context Challenges and Technical Issues in ESE
Count
Percent
20
42.6%
The technical issues are important, but the social
context issues are more important
4
8.5%
It is equally important to address technical and
social context issues
15
31.9%
The technical issues are paramount, but you can't
ignore the social context
If you get the technical issues right, the social
context issues become unimportant
7
14.9%
0
0.0%
No response
1
2.1%
47
100%
Technical issues always matter, but the social
context issues drive success
Total
1
Figure 14: Importance of Social Context Challenges Relative to Technical Issues in ESE
Respondents did not always assess the greater importance of social contexts over
technical issues as positive: "Its politics and money that will determine the apparent and real
success of a project (both are important--however, political success is often the case even
when the technical solution was wrong, or the technical solution was right but discarded.)"
32 percent of the respondents regarded social and technical issues as equally
important to ESE success highlighting the contingent nature of the two: "I don't believe
there is one answer - equally or more or less important, but must be balanced. Balance is
key and may be tailored somewhat on the environment in which one is working."
- 49 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Respondents' evaluations were independent of their depth and breadth of experience
leading SE projects."
IV.3 Critical Social Context Challenges
Nearly one-half of the respondents selected building effective relationships,
achieving consensus, communicating and listening effectively, responding to uncertainty
and change, and dealing with organizational and process factors as the critical social context
challenges in ESE (Table 4).
Table 4: Critical Social Context Challenges inESE
Social Context Challenge
Count
Percent
Building effective relationships with a variety of individuals, including staff,
clients, users, sponsors, and other stakeholders
25
53%
Achieving consensus among stakeholders and dealing with conflict
25
53%
Communicating and listening effectively within and across multiple
organizations
24
51%
Responding effectively to uncertainty and change as projects and
operational environments evolve
22
47%
Dealing with organizational and process factors (e.g. decision making
21
45%
Exerting influence on a wide range of non-MITRE stakeholders with diverse
interests
12
26%
Drawing on and enhancing MITRE's reputation for objectivity and
trustworthiness
5
11%
Others (respondents who added new challenges)
6
13%
structures) and their effects on individual roles, responsibilities, and routines
Total Number of Particpants = 47
Although not asked to evaluate relationships amongst social context challenges,
respondents frequently stated that effective communication and listening and trustfil
Pearson chi-square test were performed to determine association between respondents experience (years at
MITRE, years leading SE projects and number of different SE projects led) and their assessment of the
overall importance of social context challenges, comparison of the importance of social context challenges
with technical challenges, change in difficulty of social context challenges and change in MITRE's
capabilities to meet the social context challenges. Out of the 12 tests performed, no statistically significant
associations were found. On the same data, Kendall rank order test was also performed to test the strength
of the cross tabulations. No association was found in the 12 tests performed. An example computation is
shown in Appendix B. MITRE specific results are not reported in this document due to confidentiality
reasons.
18
-50-
and Political Challenges of Enterprs
gh
O~anizational
ytm
niern
Faaiza Rashid
relationships are factors that enable the management of other social context challenges in
ESE (Table 5 and Table 6).19
Table 5: Communication and Listening Helps Manage Other Social Context Challenges in ESE
Communicating
and listening
Count
(Percent,
helps:
N = 47)
achieve consensus
12 (26 %)
"Communicating detailed requirements, translating these requirements into
a set of architectures is critical and takes several reviews with give and take
between many different members of the enterprise to get agreement on the
solution set."
build effective
relationships
9 (19 %)
"Communicate, communicate, communicate. Relationships (work, marriage,
etc.) are built upon communications and trust."
manage change
6 (13%)
"Reluctant parties are inherently distrustful, so early, honest communication
is important. Honesty is critical in developing an understanding of why this
change is needed (motivation), what will be affected (value proposition), and
how it will affect me (how much work do I really have to do). I have seen
many times when management is not forthcoming with all the impacts and as
each new negative impact rolls out over time, the distrust and dissatisfaction
builds... Finally, a continuous communication of the leadership's dedication
to the outcome, the understanding that some will be affected, and an
articulation of the value to each party needs to occur."
deal with
organizational and
process factors
5 (11 %)
"Dealing with organizational and process factors is essential to SE success.
The right idea at the wrong time will not get funded. The right idea framed
in the wrong language, or advocated by the wrong person, won't get funded."
exert influence
4 (9 %)
"Your knowledge must be put into a form that can be understood by staff,
stakeholders, customers, and management with varying backgrounds and
interests. You often have to push the result around so that it gets to the right
people and follow up on it. Your job is not done when you "know" the answer
You must adapt your
- you must see that others grasp it and act.
communication style to the needs of the individuals you wish to influence,
and you must persist."
enhance reputation
4 (9 %)
"You must build a trust based relationship with the people you work with.
You must be perceived by them as a full member of their "inner" team."
Quotes from Respondents
11 Respondents made the linkages between social context challenges either while explaining their choice of
critical social context challenges and/or while suggesting effective practices to manage a given social context
challenge. The results in Table 5 and Table 6 do not double count when a certain respondent repeats a
linkage between two social context challenges. Each count represents a respondent and percent represents
count/N x 100, where N = 47, the total number of survey respondents.
-51 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Table 6: Effective Relationships Help Manage Other Social Context Challenges in ESE
Effective
relationships
help:
Count
(Percent,
N = 47)
Quotes from Respondents
achieve
consensus
8 (17%)
exert influence
6 (13%)
enhance
reputation
5 (11%)
"Ifyou want to build and deliver a system you must have credibility. The only
effective way through my experience is to build relationships."
communication
4 (9 %)
"Building effective relationships with a variety of individuals - the social aspects of
building consensus, communicating effectively and exerting influence cannot be
achieved without a strong relationship of trust. Relationship are at the core of all
the social aspects that ESE is attempting to address."
manage change
1 (2 %)
"Building effective relationships - To maintain situational awareness of
activities/changes/decisions that are occurring in related programs to help improve
(or avoid degrading) the overall system of systems."
deal with
organizational
and process
factors
1 (20/6)
"Building effective relationships: The very nature of a system is that it has
component contributions from parts, people and processes, and without effective
relationships among and between them the system will fail. Even in organizations,
we have seen the detrimental effect of "stovepiping", and we now see movement in
certain organizations to remove the stovepipes and open collaborations. People
have the ability to think, and by fostering relationships we bring the diverse
thinking of intelligent people to bear on the overall solution."
"Building effective relationships with a variety of individuals is also critical, in my
view, as it is pre-requisite to building consensus/dealing with conflict and also with
exerting influence on enterprise efforts."
Comments on Survey's List of Social Context Challenges
Respondents were given an opportunity to comment on the list of social context
challenges in the survey. 39 respondents provided input: 21 made new suggestions, 13
elaborated on the challenges in the list and 5 made comments.
Out of the 21 new
suggestions, only 6 respondents selected their suggestion as a critical social context
challenge in ESE. Of the 13 who elaborated on the challenges already in the list, 7 selected
their suggestion as a critical social context challenge (Table 7 and Table 8).
-52-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Table 7: Additions to Survey's List of Social Context Challenges
Suggested to the
list (Count)
Selected as a critical
challenge (Count)
Understanding enterprise line of business, communicating
the business case
2
2
Institutionalizing knowledge transfer (between organizations
and between experienced and inexperienced employees)
3
2
Understanding interdependence and its ripple effects
3
1
Understanding customer needs
1
1
Other additions
12
0
Additions to the list of social context chalenge
Other additions in Table 7 include social context challenge additions that were
recommended but not selected by the participants as a critical social context challenges.
These included understanding and explaining one's differentiated role in a multistakeholder enterprise (3), understanding the big picture (3), managing the who is in charge
dilemma (2), setting the right initial conditions by avoiding flawed assumptions (1),
creating an efficient workforce (1), recognizing the social context (1), managing customer
expectations (1), where the numbers in parentheses refer to the respondent count of the
respective addition.
Table 8: Elaborations to Survey's List of Social Context Challenges
Elaborations to the social context challenges on the list
Managing
change
Include creating change, building flexibility, having
broader technological awareness and a willingness
to adapt to technological progress, understanding
and leveraging the financial and technical
environment, building adaptive capacity towards
leadership changes and workforce turnover.
Achieving
consensus
Include building structures that allow for local and
enterprise wide optimization to align conflicting
agendas, generating stakeholder buy-in.
Suggeted to
the list (Count)
Selected as a
critical challenge
c(Count)
7
4
6
3
Three respondents explicitly stated that MITRE specific social context challenges
should not be on the list. These two challenges were: "Exerting influence on a wide range
of non-MITRE stakeholders with diverse interest" and "Drawing on and enhancing
MITRE's reputation."
- 53 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
If we do very good work at MITRE, an enhanced reputation should follow. In the last
challenge, "enhancing MITRE's reputation" seems self-serving and should not be part of
the challenge of getting the job done. In fact, I've seen instances in which it's a
distraction from getting the job done, just as much a distraction as when people seek to
promote themselves to their customers and bosses.
I don't particularly like the wording for two of the challenges (i.e., the ones that explicitly
include MITRE references) ... this ESE survey seems like it wants to be general in
nature, and yet these two challenges ("exerting influence on non-MITRE stakeholders"
and "drawing on MITRE's reputation") seem a bit self-serving and some might even
interpret them to assume that only MITRE faces ESE challenges ...
IV.4 Effective Practices to Manage Social Context Challenges
This section shifts to the prescriptive results of the survey: effective practices that
help manage the critical social context challenges in ESE.
Building Effective Relationships
More than 50 percent of the respondents selected "building effective relationships"
as a critical social context challenge in ESE.
Respondents explained that
Table 9: How to Build Effective Relationships
Effective Practices
Communicate and listen
Be non-adversarial and collaborative
Build trust
Do stakeholder analysis
Develop the relationship over time
Others
Total
it is critical to build relationships in
Count
Percent
11
10
7
28
order
25
18
context
4
4
10
10
to
manage
challenges
other social
(such
as
achieving consensus and exerting
10
influence), to foster collaboration
100% 1 and
coordination
amongst
4
40
stakeholders and to manage the detailed complexity often characteristic of enterprises20 (see
Appendix C for more details on respondents' explanations). Respondents offered a total of
40 suggestions for effective practices that help build relationships (Table 9).
These
suggestions included a mix of strategies (such as communicate and listen, build trust) and
tactics (such as perform stakeholder analysis):
Detailed complexity occurs when large number of components (people, processes, or technology) make a
system complex. This is different from dynamic complexity, where cause and effect amongst system
components is unclear (Sterman, 2000).
20
- 54 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
1) Communicate and listen, but be non-adversarial and collaborative: Respondents
suggested establishing rapport with stakeholders through collaborative and non adversarial
communication and attentive listening.
Be as transparent as
and disagree - point out that having alternative
However, this too will vary since I often don't
I also admit when I don't know something or
of weakness. It often is an ice-breaker.
[L]istening to and attempting to understand varying positions.
possible by telling people when you agree
viewpoints is OK as long as understood.
want to let my position out right up front.
have forgotten. This doesn't signal a sign
Tactics proposed to develop a collaborative atmosphere included giving positive
feedback in public and constructive criticism in private; sharing credit for success and
responsibility for failures; asking clarifying questions and showing the desire to learn and
teach; avoiding technical nit-picking and giving advice that results in improvements rather
than discouragement.
Praising in public, criticizing in private. Taking on tasks with other workers and
enabling them and the larger team to be successful at the expense of you getting all the
credit. Not leaving others to shoulder blame for collective mistakes or inability to deliver.
2) Build trust over time and take action when relationships waver: Relationships cannot be
engineered. They take time to build and energy to sustain.
Relationships must be given a chance to grow over time with confidence building as the
respect deepens. Truly listening to the needs/concerns of the individual is also important
- people want to be heard, understood and acknowledged.
Relationships evolve with time and may require action when they struggle.
[I[f some relationships are flailing, are there key folks you can bring into the equation
(like a credible SME from your organic team who can knock down barriers between
acquisition community and user community).
3) Identify and understand stakeholders using stakeholder analysis: It is tough to build a
relationship, if one doesn't know who to build relationships with. Respondents pointed out
that performing stakeholder analysis early on in the project can be very helpful for
identifying and understanding stakeholders, and developing a strategy.
Stakeholder analysis that recognizes the roles, and level of support in terms of
commitment. Projects that I've seen inventory the stakeholders (decision makers, team
members, end users representatives, etc.) and characterize their roles, motivations, level of
potential influence, and whether they are supportive, agnostic, or oppositional to the
success of the initiative at hand (which may change over time). These attributes are then
used to build a communication and influence strategy for leveraging supporters while
overcoming or working around opponents.
- 55 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
One key is to do a thorough stakeholder analysis early in the process. Develop network
diagrams, understand who is building the relationships, understand the decision makers.
Know what is possible and what is improbable. We have done this for several key
projects and this has been a vital element of success.
Achieving Consensus
More than 50 percent of the respondents selected "achieving consensus" as a critical
social context challenge in ESE, explaining it to be necessary for developing a big picture
understanding of the enterprise, for aligning agendas of stakeholders and to work towards
the collective goals of an enterprise (see Appendix C for more details on why respondents
chose this challenge). A few responses also highlighted that achieving consensus is not the
issue, but achieving consensus on the right approaches and paths that serves the overall
interest of the enterprise, is the main issue in managing this challenge.
Achieving consensus among stakeholders - an obvious requirement, but one that often is
satisfied by the least common denominator. Leadership, effective leadership, is able to
achieve consensus even for positions that are not supported at the outset, by effective,
forceful championing of the right approach. In the process, the reputation of the
leadership is enhanced by the recognition that they led through a difficult process, rather
than succumbing to the path of least resistance to consensus.
Table 10: How to Achieve Consensus
Effective Practice
Understand and involve all stakeholders
Build relationships and trust
Communicate and listen
Use consensus building techniques
Generate stakeholder buy-in
Bring in decision making authority
Respondents offered a
Count
8
6
Percent
21
16
total
of 38
suggestions
effective
practices
consensus.
6
6
6
4
16
16
16
achieve
11
understanding
Other
2
5
Total
38
100%
suggestions
key
that
for
help
These
included
and
involving
stakeholders
through
attentive listening and effective communication; developing the common purpose of the
enterprise to generate stakeholder buy-in; and building trust-based relationships.
Other
suggestions included the use of consensus building techniques and decision making
authority (Table 10).
1) Involve critical stakeholders, communicate, listen, align, and build buy-in: Consensus is
meaningful if it is achieved amongst critical stakeholders and is built on clarity rather than
confusion. Involvement of critical stakeholders may require stakeholder buy-in. One way
-56-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
to generate buy-in is through the development of a common purpose of an enterprise Oand
through establishment of the value of an enterprise to individual stakeholders.
One practice that works sometimes is to "appeal to the greater good". Since "profit" is
not a motivator for the defense community, it is sometimes hard to find that single
purpose that can drive the organization, but something like - "for the good of the
country", does generally resonate.
Having stakeholder buy-in is especially helpful when participating stakeholders have
competing priorities. Understanding the stakeholders and their interests (which may not be
well defmed) is also critical to leverage the right individuals for support and make a
convincing case for those in opposition. Listening attentively in the beginning may help
understand the degree of disagreement amongst stakeholders.
Achieving consensus - in attempting to get disparate parties to all agree that they should
move forward in a common direction is best achieved through demonstration of value to
each participant. If someone is asked to do something they find no value in, they are
more reluctant to comply - the old "what's in it for me?" syndrome. When there is a
benefit to them, even if small and shared by others, people are more inclined to "sign
up".
Clarity on 'what' needs consensus is essential for efficiently achieving consensus.
Explicit communication can clarify the details of a consensus.
Achieving consensus among stakeholders - I haven't seen it work well, but I've seen
many examples where it is not effective, e.g., using vague terminology to obscure detail
to try to achieve consensus of something that says nothing.
2) Use of consensus building tactics and tools: Tactics suggested included bringing in
senior decision makers to resolve matters and set the right direction, using trained
facilitators,
forming cross-center
teams
with
members who
understand various
stakeholder's points of view, meeting one-on-one with stakeholders prior to consensus
building meetings, and resolving issues at the appropriate program level. Tools suggested
included Quality Function Deployment (QFD), decision space visualization tools that
demonstrate the solution space, Japanese analysis methods for core problem analysis, "Voice
of the Customer" methods, and KJ methods.
Our most effective tool is to put cross-center teams together with diverse skills that
understand the various issues and points of view of stakeholders. We "fight the battles"
inside the building and then present a consensus view that we can all articulate externally.
We then work the various parties individually as well as facilitate getting them together
to make decisions.
-57-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
One respondent detailed the use of "strategy sessions" to train individuals in
building consensus:
"Strategy Sessions" I recall the best program director I have ever worked for. Almost
every Friday he held a two hour strategy session among his key leaders. He role played
that we were the board of directors of a company. Our goal was to maximize value to our
shareholders, that is, deliver capability to our end user. We could make any changes to
our work program and personnel assignments that we wanted to. We defined all the
work we did and segmented it into "packages". Each package was described. We each
had a vote on the 1 though n priority of the work packages. The democratic voting was
tallied. Minority viewpoints were heard (actually they were required to be heard). The
Director could overrule the democratic voting but almost never had to. Why? Because
smart people with a common understanding of the facts tended to reach a consensus
pretty quickly. Simple but elegant process. Oh yes and by the way, there was no power
point allowed or electronic gadgetry allowed.
Communicating and Listening Effectively
More than 50 percent of the respondents selected "communicating and listening
effectively" as a critical social context challenge in ESE.
Respondents repeatedly
mentioned that communication is a two way process and it has two mutually reinforcing
components: articulation and listening.
Qualitative responses often implied that
respondents thought of this give and take process as teaching and learning, or
understanding and explaining.
Respondents stated that effective communication and
listening is needed to foster stakeholder coordination, collaboration and understanding; to
establish ESE goals; and to manage the evolving context of ESE.
Effective
communication and listening as an enabling factor in managing other social context
challenges surfaced frequently (see Appendix C for more details on these explanations).
Table 11: How to Communicate Effectively
Effective Practices
Listen to enhance understanding
Be explicit in articulation
Engage across programs/stakeholders
Leverage tools/approaches
Others
Total
Respondents offered a total
Count
8
8
Percent
27
27
6
6
20
20
(Table 11).
2
30
7
included developing personal skills
100%
(explicit articulation and attentive
of 30 suggestions
for effective
practices that help communicate
These suggestions
listening), taking organizational actions (coordinating program wide meetings, offering
training in written and oral communications, rewarding systems engineers for effective
-58-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
communication), and leveraging tools (such as using standard information sharing
mechanisms).
1) Accuracy, efficiency and inclusiveness comprise effective communication: Respondents
associated effective communication and listening skills with three attributes: accuracy of
message, efficiency of delivery, and inclusiveness of reach. Respondents emphasized that in
ESE one has to move past the idea that one explanation fits all audiences and understand
that sharing information (laced in confusing and vague jargon) is not effective
communication. Using stories to engage audiences and using jargon free language was
suggested for inclusive communication. "We need to teach story telling and need to teach
what is needed in an elevator speech."
I find it critical when facing a group with diverse backgrounds to start out by addressing
the terminology we will be using and ensuring that we all share a common
understanding. Often that means that I have to lead a discussion of each term and define
it within the context of the discussion. If we are talking about engineering, the
engineering definition is paramount. If we are speaking about privacy, legal definitions
take precedence.
With regard to listening it was recommended that the listener should briefly
reiterate what is heard to ensure accuracy of understanding, especially when stakeholders are
not clearly articulating their underlying concerns.
Stakeholders don't always clearly articulate what their underlying concern is and frequently
focus on the solution. By asking for clarification or paraphrasing what you're hearing,
you often get to the root cause of a problem which puts you in a better position to
address the real issue.
Efficiency in communication could be achieved by having meetings that are
frequent yet relevant in content, clear on agenda and inclusive of critical stakeholders. For
example, in a design meeting the end-users may be the critical stakeholder.
Traditional technical exchange meetings with all relevant stakeholders still has value, but
smaller more frequent progress meetings that still include the sponsor are critical. I don't
advocate meetings just to have meetings, but smaller groups that follow a spiral
development format, that include good project representation has helped me in the past.
For example: software developer meetings that include a senior member of the user
community prevents system development that doesn't really satisfy requirements.
Sometimes developers "think" they know what the user wants, and the user isn't part of
the design until beta testing.
-59-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Another effective practice suggested for achieving efficiency was having regular
meetings with a clear expectation that participants will provide an update on the status of
their respective deliverables.
For multi-organizational groups (gov't [government], industry, FFRDC, UARC) I found
it best to have regular meetings which directly address the status of deliverables. Forcing
team members to present their work to the rest of the team quickly determines strengths
and weaknesses, tasks which are behind schedule, and what needs to be looked at more
closely.
2) Organizations can promote effective communication by opening communication paths
and fostering program-wide engagements
(such as convening forums for various
stakeholders, instituting transparency that promotes information sharing and encouraging
use of information sharing technologies).
Cross program working groups. They allow participants to put issues on the table for
discussion and resolution. They keep communication paths open.
Transparency is important for large complex programs. Many times a few people know
the details and these are not effectively socialized and disseminated. Using relatively low
cost and easy to use technologies (e.g., web, blogs, wikis, etc) the Project Team can
effectively share program data with a large group of people. It is important to try to share
everything and not just official documentation.
Organizations can also promote effective communication by acknowledging and
rewarding good communication skills and offering training in written and oral
communication.
MITRE staff should also be publicly rewarded for communicating well, as I think that
public acknowledge of a skillset at MITRE is probably the best motivator we have. I'd
also require that all 1st-level managers assess their staffs comms [communications]
skills every year on the P&D, and the same for the 2nd level mgrs [managers] for the 1st
level mgrs.
I usually recommend folks get training in effective communications. There's a real need
to be able to recognize communication styles that are effective with specific individuals
and tailor your approach to them appropriately.
3) Use tools that standardize communication: Use of tools was suggested for three
purposes: to facilitate communication during the project so everyone is up to date with the
project progress (using webs, wikis), to enhance understanding of the finished products
(using standards and architecture tools) and to communicate to multiple audiences.
-
60 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Collaboration environments can be useful in developing products involving many
contributors. They can also facilitate discussion and information exchange. Much
upfront work is needed for optimal design of the environment's structure and user
interface to make it useful and minimize training needs. They can be a great facilitator of
information and idea exchange and will be used if they are easy to use, have the widest
possible access, and are updated continuously.
[T]he use of standards and architecture tools that produce an understanding of the
finished product throughout the total program.
Develop the skills and tools to communicate the multiple audiences. We have developed
a layered set of information tools (called RBA that we just won a corporate management
award) that can target individuals at the senior management positions all the way down to
the detailed analysts.
Responding Effectively to Uncertainty and Change
47 percent of the respondents selected "responding effectively to uncertainty and
change," as a critical social context challenge in ESE, emphasizing that change is inevitable
and adaptation needed in enterprises.
One respondent reasoned that change can be a
window of opportunity to push forward ideas and recommendations (see Appendix C for
more details).
Table 12: How to Respond Effectively to Uncertainty and Change
Manage expectations
Count
6
Leverage tools and techniques
Communicate regularly
5
Percent
25
21
3
13
Understanding/managing the ESE environment
Incorporate resilience and supportive structures
3
2
13
Exercise leadership and change management
2
Effective Practice
8
8
Other
3
13
Total
24
100 %
24 suggestions were
made to effectively manage
These
included
setting
accurate expectations at the
onset, leveraging tools and
techniques
that
help
forecast change, communicating changes accurately and efficiently, incorporating adaptive
design in organizations, leveraging the enterprise environment and exercising leadership and
management (Table 12).
1) Setting accurate expectations and communicating regularly- Calibrating expectations at
the onset by openly discussing the associated uncertainties (such as potential funding cuts,
change in stakeholders etc.) with the project team can minimize frustrations later on.
Exploring unsuccessful or alternative outcomes can also help set realistic expectations.
-
61 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Responding effectively to uncertainty and change. The best way to deal with uncertainty
and change is to address it head on. At the formation of a team it should be indicated
that change is expected, and a process should be implemented to address it in a positive
fashion.
Look for examples where optimistic expectations may not work. More is learned from
counterexamples than from limited instances of success. One only learns from mistakes,
so it's good to take informed risks in the pursuit of opportunities.
You must always be thinking about "what-ifs" and how you would handle them. What
would you do with a 15-25% cut in budget. What would you do if something broke or
didn't work as planned. What would you do if a key person left the team?
Once the project commences, communication paths must be kept open and
individuals updated on the project progress. "Frequent team meetings provide updates to all
team members so they feel they are 'in the know'."
2) Resilient and supportive organizational structure: Reduced reporting hierarchy can help
report change faster.
"Reduce reporting hierarchy and support direct peer-to-peer
interactions." Resilience in organizational design can increase an organization's adaptation.
However, for the latter, no clear design option was offered by the respondents.
Accepting that uncertainty and change are inevitable. Building in mechanisms that allow
for uncertainty and change, i.e., resilient systems.
3) Understanding and leveraging the enterprise environment: This includes awareness of
variables in the enterprise environment such as technological changes, fimancial trends.
Respondents suggested leveraging each change variable based on whether it can be
controlled, influenced or appreciated.
4) Exercising leadership and change management, and having the right mindset can help
mitigate the psychological panic that comes with uncertainty and implementation of
change.
Change management is a major activity in many of our programs. One critical element of
change management is leadership, not just management. Without real leadership, change
is difficult to accomplish. To achieve effective change, the leader must articulate the
imperative for change so people can understand the need and make the change objective
their own personal goal and objective. Unless the imperative for change is understood,
change will be resisted. Change fosters a certain level of uncertainty, but making the
imperative for change clear, and establishing the leadership to drive the change, will
remove much of the anxiety created by the uncertainty that naturally accompanies change.
Leaders have to help each person see how their contribution is important to making the
change work and arriving at the new state of being dictated by the change. There should
-62-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
never, not ever, be an environment where there is change simply for the sake of change.
All that does is produce ulcers and frustration.
Managing change also requires a certain mindset and characteristics of flexibility
and optimism.
It is somewhat difficult for me to define effective practices to responding to change, but
characteristics like flexibility, thick skin, and optimism come to mind... .Take the time
to consider how the change will benefit the outcome, how it will effect the path to
achieve that outcome then get on that new train with a positive, can-do attitude.
5) Tools and techniques: Risk analysis, forecasting models, evaluation of impact of change
across the enterprise, and reserving finds to handle uncertainties were suggested as tools
and tactics that can help better manage change.
One way I have been dealing with this challenge is by ensuring that I always save some
$$ to bring the Corporation to bear--specifically, to be able to bring in different
expertise skillsets as required/when needed--even to help on short fuse taskings.
Dealing with Organizational and Process Factors
45 percent of the respondents selected "dealing with organizational and process
factors" as a critical social context challenge that must be managed to identify
organizational changes needed to meet the enterprise mission, to align organizations roles,
to obtain organizational buy-in, to understand organizational and system constraints and to
deal with lack of central authority (see Appendix C for details).
Respondents offered a total of 15 suggestions to better manage this challenge.
These suggestions included
Table 13: How to Deal with Organizational and Process Factors
Effective Practices
Count
Percent
defining
clearly
organizational
roles,
Define organizational roles
3
20
Be flexible and adaptive
3
20
Bring in central decision making authority
3
20
processes and adapting to
Take initiative and exert influence
2
13
new technology, tackling
Leverage tool
1
7
the
Listen to achieve consensus
1
7
Build relationships and credibility
1
7
Understand organizational interests, culture
1
7
15
100%
Total
-63-
upgrading
organizational
lack
of
central
authority, taking initiative
and
exerting
Strategies
influence.
such
as
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
communicating, listening to achieve consensus, building relationships, understanding
organizational culture, interests and operations were also suggested (Table 13).
1) Clearly define organizational roles and responsibilities with respect to organizational
deliverables. This helps coordinate schedules, define and align organizational roles and set
expectations.
Respondents also suggested that clarity on organizational roles and
responsibilities gives a specific purpose to each member organization of an enterprise. If
roles and deliverables are outlined, it is easier to understand the technical and management
tasks that are needed for an enterprise. Creating a document that records these roles and
responsibilities was also suggested so there is a reference point to fall back to as roles and
responsibilities switch/evolve.
Have the program office establish and program management plan or equivalent plan that
identifies the concept of operations for the program and defines organizational
boundaries, responsibilities, processes and procedures. Keep this plan up to date and
relevant.
Further, monitoring organizational roles in the absence of metrics is difficult.
Respondents suggested developing progress measurement metrics to monitor progress.
For every program, there are goals and objectives, and some output product. To be
successful, you have to be able to measure where you are, how you are achieving the plan,
whether you are on schedule and budget, and the quality and reliability of the product or
products. None of this can be done "flying by the seat of your pants" or assuming
someone else is doing what is needed. There has to be effective organization, each
element of which has a specific purpose. Effective processes must be implemented, for
most metrics of any value are derived from the application of a process. Processes must
cover all essential elements, both technical and management, and must include those
related to social context challenges. There has to be a set of processes, for example,
known to all, that govern how managers relate to other employees, what is expected from
each employee, and what employees should expect from managers.
2) Adapt organizational processes and solutions instead of trying to use old processes and
solutions to fix new problems. And stay abreast with technological changes.
Dealing with organizational and process factors. As noted above, we spend too much
time trying to adapt outmoded process and organization to emerging problems, too often
simply "recycling" the same processes over and over. We need to become more agile and
LESS organizationally constrained...
Expand envelope of technical awareness and leverage enterprise resources to connect
technical developments at the project level.
-64-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Further, let go of the assumption and mindset that technological solutions are easily
transferable to other enterprise members.
We've got to get past "one size fits all" thinking when it comes to technological
solutions. Systems are far more than functional code and reference tables. We need to
change the way we train technologists so we don't assume that our work is automatically
generalizable or transferable.
3) Manage the lack of central authority as it impedes effective decision making and
progress monitoring which in turn enhances the challenge of dealing with organizational
One respondent indirectly suggested having a pre-determined decision making
factors.
process throughout the project and having a mechanism for documenting decisions as they
are made.
The major process issue I've dealt with in the last few years is decision making. First,
having an end-to-end decision making process - with clear understanding - is missing.
Even when this is in place, I've encountered where they are not documented properly or at
all! ..... Also, once a decision is made should not allow to continually revisit unless new
data or other change. Seems like a no-brainer, but over the years I've seen this happen.
Some of it has to do with documenting the decision.
Exerting influence and bringing in a higher authority to mitigate the lack of central
authority was also suggested.
Dealing with organizational and process factors: The absence of an effective decisionmaking structure can be a real impediment to effective systems engineering. I know of
no effective practice to mitigate the resulting risks except to leverage MITRE's reputation
by bringing the problem to the attention of a higher authority--one capable of exerting the
required control across the enterprise.
Lack of central authority may also lead to lack of accountability or incentives. One
strategy respondents recommended was to take initiative to set precedent.
Organizational Process Factors - I've found that it often is more direct to start a new
process by "doing it ourself." Lots of folks do not like new tasks implied in an
information system, but if you can show it taking shape, the benefits become more
apparent. Threat of PARs [Peer Assessment Ratings] and performance reviews do not
work in the Government, because they are not typically applied. Policies and directives
are also not typically enforced. The most readily adopted systems and process changes are
those that are jump started.
4) Strategies and techniques: Listening to achieve consensus, communicating to clarify
your position, "learn[ing] the organization and processes of the participating agencies,"
"understand[ing] the organizations operation, culture, and motivational factors," and
-65-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
building relationships to exert influence were recommended as strategies to deal with
organizational factors. Use of Integrated Product Team (IPT) structure was also proposed.
An IPT structure can be effective in dealing with organizational and process factors as
long as the members are knowledgeable of the subject area, proactive and truly empowered
to represent their respective organizations. An IPT structure can enable making decisions
at the lowest possible level. I have worked on programs where the use of IPTs was
effective in creating products that were useful and represented implicit consensus among
the stakeholders because they were coordinated by individual IPT members within their
parent organizations.
Exerting Influence
26 percent of the respondents selected "exerting influence," as a critical social
context challenge because it
Table 14: How to Exert Influence
Effective Practices
Communicate and listen
Build relationships and collaborations
Build credibility
Be sensitive to change
Include critical stakeholders upfront
Total
Count
4
3
3
2
2
Percent
29
21
21
14
14
14
100%
helps gain support, may
increase
collaboration,
expedites decision making
and establishes your value
proposition in an enterprise
(see Appendix C for more details). 14 suggestions were made by the respondents on how
to exert influence. These included other social context challenges (Table 14) such as
effective communication and building relationships. Respondents emphasized that it is
important to communicate through the right person, at the right time, at the right place,
and in the right way: "Meeting with military and civil servants prior to their trips and
suggest strategies for making progress."
Ability to exert influence was also linked with a reputation for credibility and the
personality of one exerting influence. 'To exert influence one must first be accepted as a
knowledgeable authority - it takes a series of events where an engineer demonstrates
knowledge applied, before the engineer is considered an authority in a given area." "Very
often this involves using a different type of MITRE person who can relate well with
operations people (as opposed to engineers)."
-66-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Drawing on and Enhancing MITRE's Reputation
11 percent of the respondents selected "drawing on and enhancing MITRE's
reputation" as a critical social context challenge. Respondents explained that reputation
helps explain one's role in an
Table 15: How to Draw and Enhance MITRE's Reputation
Effective Practice
Building relationships and team playing
Demonstrate MITRE's differentiated value
Count
Total
2
2
29
29
Communicate
1
14
Leadership and influence
Achieving consensus
Total
1
1
7
14
14
100 %
why respondents chose this challenge).
enterprise
to
other
build trust, credibility, and
includes
more details on
Respondents' suggestions on drawing and
enhancing MITRE's reputation included demonstrating MITRE's differentiated value
through programs such as MITRE Innovation Program, and seminars that communicate
MITRE's contributions.
Another suggestion included building relationships and
communicating with customer leadership (Table 15).
Used visits of senior managers and VPs to invite customer's leadership to MITREdeveloped events like the General Officer IT classes we help coordinate. They then see
leaders at their level who have benefited from MITRE expertise in their programs.
IV.5 Summary of Results
This study has led to several important findings regarding the impact and nature of
social context challenges in ESE and also effective practices that can address these
challenges. First, the results provide evidence that social context challenges have not only
become more difficult but they are also of prime importance for the success of ESE. A
large majority of the respondents assessed addressing social context challenges to be equally
or more important than technical challenges in ESE. These results are not associated with
respondents' depth and breadth of experience leading SE projects.
The results show that the critical social context challenges for ESE are: effective
(accurate, efficient and inclusive) communication and listening, long-term and trustful
relationships, alignment and consensus amongst stakeholders, managing change and
uncertainty and dealing with organizational and process factors. The data also shows that
-67
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
effective communication and trustful relationships can help manage other social context
challenges such as achieving consensus, aligning stakeholders, and responding to change.
To effectively manage the social contexts of ESE requires personal skills, a certain
mindset both at the individual and collective enterprise level, and an environment that
enables the right skills and mindset to thrive.
Individual skills include: effective and
inclusive communication style, ability to build and manage trustful relationships, and ability
to understand the social dynamics of an enterprise such as organizational cultures and
motives.
Individual skills also include effective ease with tools (such as forecasting
methodologies, stakeholder analysis) and tactics (such as building stakeholder buy-in,
forging relationships amongst leaders of the organizations) that help manage the social
contexts of an enterprise. The mindset in ESE ought to be collaborative with a willingness
to learn and teach and an expectation that change is inevitable in an enterprise. The
qualitative results imply that systems engineers may need to complement their engineering
mindset with a non-engineering mindset that appreciates the subjective importance of
building relationships, using stories for narration, and discussion/discovery (rather than
strictly problem-solving) mode of developing solutions.
An enabling environment recognizes that ESE requires advanced social skills and
values these social skills as a necessary capability in the human capital of an enterprise. This
means providing training in the required social skills, incorporating these skills as a factor in
selection and/or promotion criteria.
An enabling environment also means instituting
mechanisms that help build relationships, increase collaboration and maintain a smooth
flow of communication. Such mechanisms include convening exchange forums that bring
together cross-program teams, standardizing the use of information flow tools, minimizing
reporting hierarchy to ensure seamless communication at all times especially during change.
An enabling environment also means designing organizational structures that are adaptive
and resilient so that in circumstances of change, people and organizational structures
positively interact rather than obstruct each other as they collectively respond to change.
-
68 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
V.Discussion
The purpose of this chapter is to place the survey results in the context of the
SCESE project and relevant literature and thereby make suggestions for future research.
The organization of this chapter is as follows: In Section 1, results of this study are
compared with findings of the SCESE case studies. In Section 2, results of this study are
synthesized with relevant literature. In Section 3, constraints and limitations of this study
are discussed and options for future research are explored.
V.1 Comparison of Results with SCESE Case Studies
The findings of the survey and the case studies are complementary. The survey
assesses the overall nature and impact of social context challenges in ESE and effective
practices for addressing these types of challenges and the case studies provide a context
based assessment of the social context challenges in ESE. Table 16 compares the social
context challenges that appear both in the survey and the case studies.
Table 16: Comparison of Social Context Challenges inSCESE Survey and SCESE Case Studies
Dealing with organizational and
process factors (e.g. decision
making structures) and their effects
on individual roles,
Challenges in SCESE Case Studies (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008)
- Satisfying diverse and competing needs of customer segments and
competing organizational interests. Absence of a single
hierarchically organized customer as in traditional systems
engineering.
- Lack of a single decision making entity that can mediate
differences and provide final decisions.
- Improving enterprise efficiency and effectiveness and generating
organizational coordination without bottom line metrics.
- Tension between long term (R&D, innovation) and short term
(current operational needs) organizational efforts
- Changing technology and changing customer needs.
- Changing organizational leadership where programs are started
but then handed over to the new leader who comes in with a new
set of goals and objectives.
e Variations in organizational processes and culture where
standardization is resisted by those that would have to undergo
adjustments and changes under the new standards.
* Continued use of outdated processes such as long range planning
responsibilities, and routines
and budgeting for fast evolving enterprises. When the use of these
(N = 21, 45 %)
outdated processes is legally mandated, engineers are left with no
choice but to follow these processes.
SCESE Survey
Achieving consensus among
stakeholders and dealing with
conflict
(N = 25, 53 %)
Responding effectively to
uncertainty and change
(N = 22, 47 %)
- 69 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The SCESE survey found that building relationships (N = 25, 53 %) and
communicating and listening (N = 24, 51 %)were critical social context challenges and also
tactics that help manage other social context challenges. The SCESE case studies also
highlight the importance of building relationships and communication in case specific
discussions. The enterprise initiatives in the SCESE case studies can be categorized into
two types: 1) initiatives that develop a specific new technology and bring together different
user communities, and 2) initiatives that update and integrate technologies for an existing
user community. The former project type (diverse customers, evolving requirements)
compared to the latter is less within the skill set of most systems engineers. For such
initiatives, routinizing the conflict management process enables smoother consensus
building and decision-making. Conflicts could also be avoided by making the consensus
building and decision-making process fair through checks and balances, equal voting rights,
and equitable distribution of benefits. Without this routinization, conflict management
processes may emerge chaotically. For enterprise initiatives that have a stable user
community, stability was attributed to the personal skills of an individual who created the
technical and social relationships in the otherwise geographically-dispersed
Opportunities for communication
conferences.
system.
and exchange of ideas were provided through
Conferences were free-form discussions and attendees irrespective of
positions shared ideas. Effective communication (face-to-face or by phone) led to personal,
trust-based relationships (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008).
These two types of enterprise initiatives provide a rich context for the results of the
SCESE survey. Achieving consensus was selected as a critical social context challenge by
more than half of the SCESE survey respondents. The effective practices for achieving
consensus included involving critical stakeholders, communicating, listening, aligning
stakeholders and building buy-in. Tactics such as bringing in senior decision-makers to
resolve matters and using trained facilitators and tools such as Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) were also suggested. What is interesting from the case studies is that
personal skills in achieving consensus may be helpful in initiatives that systems engineers are
familiar with-stable user communities where the technological change still brings forth
uncertainty, but uncertainty that systems engineers are used to managing. However, for
-70
-
and Political Challenges of Enterprise SytmEnierg
ranizational
gh
Faaiza Rashid
enterprise initiatives with diverse stakeholders, skills and tactics alone may not suffice, and a
routinization of conflict management practices may be needed. A fair consensus building
process that maintains stakeholder buy-in as the enterprise members navigate from conflict
to consensus may have to be established, even before conflict emerges. Personal skills (such
as effective communication style, ability to building relationships) will probably be useful in
these environments of diverse stakeholders but without an enabling environment (one that
routinizes the consensus building and decision making process) they may be insufficient to
produce consensus and conflict resolution.
The SCESE case studies also present findings on the issue of centralized and
decentralized planning. The findings caution against adhering to one approach recognizing
that there are pros and cons to each. For instance centralized authority with limited local
knowledge of issues may fail to bring greater consistency and clarity that it was instituted to
bring. As local behavior becomes incongruent with the actions of the centralized authority,
inefficiencies arise. Decentralization on other hand can bring challenges in information
sharing and coordination.
The case studies assess an enterprise initiative where
decentralization was adopted during the exploratory and innovative phase of the project,
where the focus was on local needs. As local successes were achieved, scale up was initiated.
However, the bottom up coordination was highly attributed to the open communication
and relationship building efforts of an individual. Eventually, the program oscillated
between decentralized and centralized ways of planning (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008)
showing that each way of organizing comes with its set of challenges.
Respondents in the SCESE survey raised lack of central authority as a challenge
only a few times. I think in ESE it is important to understand the purpose that lack of
central authority would serve. Its purpose would be to enable rather than command and
control. Its purpose would be to provide guidance and clarity on issues by dissipating
information effectively as needed. The SCESE case studies bring to light an interesting
example where a project swayed from decentralization in the early innovative stages (where
personal skills such as open communication and trustful relationships are needed) to
centralization in the scale-up phases where more system wide coordination and flow of
information may be needed. Synthesizing the case study and survey findings, understanding
-71-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
the nodes and modes of planning in an enterprise may be the answer to addressing the lack
of central authority in enterprises. As enterprises evolve they may have to oscillate between
centralization and decentralization or at a given time certain functions of an enterprise may
be centralized (information dissemination) while others could be decentralized (innovation
programs).
Besides different types of programs and the issue of centralization versus
decentralization, the SCESE case studies also suggest that new social skills and networks of
trustful relations are needed in ESE. The case studies state that in traditional systems
engineering trust flowed from technical expertise, management was top-down with a
culture of hierarchy and there was an understanding of shared goals. ESE projects are laced
with organizational, political and cultural issues such that personal skills (flexibility,
listening, negotiating, and openness to alternatives) become important. Trust now flows
from the ability to communicate, connect and achieve consensus across multiple
stakeholders (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008). Over 50 percent of the SCESE survey
respondents selected building effective relationships, achieving consensus (that requires
negotiation skills), communication and listening as critical social context challenges in
ESE. Further the qualitative results of the survey show that ESE requires personal skills
but also a certain mindset that accepts change as inevitable, implying flexibility and
openness to alternatives. The case studies also suggest that traditional problem-solving
approach of engineers (where technology solves problems and little, if any, attention is
given to the non-technical aspects of problems) may be insufficient in enterprise systems
engineering (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008). The survey results show that enterprise systems
engineers may have to complement their engineering mindset with an appreciation for the
subjective importance
of building relationships,
using stories for narration,
and
discussion/discovery (rather than strictly problem-solving) as a mode of developing
solutions.
Regarding personal skills needed in ESE, respondents to the survey and interviewees
in the case studies seem to associate personal skills with inherent qualities. A survey
respondent regarding effective communication and exerting influence commented, "Very
often this involves using a different type of MITRE person who can relate well with
-
72
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
operations people (as opposed to engineers)." Another respondent wished to be a leader
who can generate trust:
The people that accomplish tasks must believe in what they are doing and even when they
don't understand it fully, if they trust their leadership, they open themselves to having the
leader extract the best from them and they will do all they can to accomplish the goals set
forth by that leader. I wish I was that leader.
The narratives in the case studies also bring forth personality-oriented examples that
highlight the heroic behavior of a few systems engineers. If there is an inherent assumption
held by systems engineers which equates personal skills needed in ESE with inherent traits
that you either possess or do not possess, then building ESE capabilities around these skills
becomes a matter of selection rather than a matter of training. I do not think a survey and
case studies are enough to confidently conclude that this assumption is pervasive in systems
engineers or true in the world, but it is one that is worth addressing when efforts to train
systems engineers are undertaken.
Systems engineering industry has undergone changes since the inception of MITRE
in 1950s: today commercial
firms actively manage upstream suppliers, however
government programs are legally constrained to do the same (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008).
Two respondents in the survey strongly emphasized the need to understand the enterprise
line of business as it stands today.
The case studies also conclude that an environment of rapid technological change
escalates customer demands for capabilities and solutions that are not always in line with
what is technologically feasible.
The need to understand stakeholder and customer
requirements frequently emerged in the qualitative responses of the SCESE survey.?
Given these two results, it seems pertinent that systems engineers in ESE understand
customer requirements but also learn how to manage customer expectations. The latter is
probably very difficult to do if customers are segmented and have competing interests. It is
also difficult to do if managing customer expectations is outside the scope of MITRE as
pointed out in the SCESE case studies (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008). Nevertheless,
Managing customer expectations was added to the list of social context challenges by one respondent in
the SCESE survey.
21
- 73 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
recognition of negative behavioral effects (such as technologically unfeasible demands by
the customers) in the age of rapid technological change becomes necessary.
Finally, the case studies also identify that as MITRE develops its capabilities for
ESE, it will need more than the development of personal skills of gifted systems engineers.
MITRE may also need to develop a strategy for building trustful networks prior to the
need for technological change (Brooks, Beard et al. 2008). The results of the SCESE
survey suggest that an enabling environment is needed for the personal skills and mindset
required in ESE to thrive. Building a strategy for trustful networks as suggested in the case
studies is the right starting point for the flourishing of an enabling environment
recommended in the survey results. The case studies rightly point out that MITRE must
plan ahead to build such a strategy prior to the technological change (Brooks, Beard et al.
2008).
V.2 Synthesis of Results with Literature
Currently there is no body of literature on the social contexts of enterprise systems
engineering to which I can benchmark this study's quantitative results on the nature and
impact of social context challenges in ESE. Therefore, in the following subsections, only
the qualitative results on the effective practices to manage the social context challenges in
ESE are synthesized with relevant literature.
Personal skills
Enterprises possess many attributes of complex systems such as interdependence,
novel and unpredictable behavior, and needs for learning, adaptation and co-evolution.
Therefore, not surprisingly, the results of this study strongly correspond with the literature
on complexity management which puts communication (McMillan 2000; Dooley 2002;
Levine and Regine 2002; Lissack 2002 a, b; Prusak 2002; Schultz 2002; Snowden 2002;
Tasaka 2002; Wood 2002) and relationships (Dooley 2002; Levine and Regine 2002;
Senge 2002; Wood 2002; Kelly 2004) at the forefront of effective management of
complex systems.
Because the behavior of complex systems arises from component
interactions, communication is important for how agents interact and learn (Schultz 2002).
-
74 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The -quality of thinking and learning in these interactions is "strongly influenced by the
quality of relationships" (Senge 2002, p. 100).
The organization is not the walls, the doors and the copying machine-it is the people
and their discourse. It is through those ongoing discourses and conversational processes
that the organization is re-created every single moment and every single day (Dooley
2002, p. 76).
In a world with rapid information flow, it is pertinent to understand that
information exchange is not the entirety of communication. Information must be
processed in a coherent manner to generate an overarching vision and a shared
understanding. "Generate information coherence, not information sharing" (Tasaka 2002,
p. 135) or as the survey respondents emphasize, information sharing laced with jargon is
not effective communication. "You want to have meaningful discussion; you want to have
knowledge transfer, and you want to have people learning from each other" (Prusak 2002,
p. 193). Jargon hinders effective communication (Tasaka 2002) and impedes the
generation of information coherence: "Using jargon for jargon's sake is a symbol of
arrogance at worst, disrespect at best" (Lissack 2002b, p. 59). Face-to-face discussions
(Prusak 2002) and story-telling
(Schultz 2002; Snowden 2002) enable effective
communication. The survey respondents repeatedly suggest the practice of attentive
listening to understand stakeholders and their needs and to understand the system.
Organizations often speak more (80 percent of the time) and listen less (20 percent of the
time); these figures are reversed for complex organisms that effectively communicate
everyday by relying heavily on their senses to gather and input information as needed
(Mitchell and Jackson 2006).
Besides communication, relationships and networks are of prime importance in
complex systems. "Management guided by principles of complexity science leads to a
human oriented style of working, in which relationships become the new bottom line of
business"
(Lewin and Regine 2002, p. 42). "A healthy enterprise nurtures an ecology
generated from a diverse web of relationships among diverse people" (Kelly 2004, p. 72).
The issue of healthy diversity did not emerge in survey results. However, literature on
complexity management states that positive relationships in complex systems do not imply
homogeneity, where everyone gets along because they think and work alike. It is critical to
- 75 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
assemble heterogeneous agents because variations/heterogeneity gives networks their value
(Holland 1995; Johnson 2000; LeBaron 2000; Allen 2001; McKelvey 2004). Therefore,
building effective relationships must be encouraged in the context of a healthy diversity that
in turn brings value to the relationships.
Mindset
A key finding of the SCESE survey was that in ESE a mindset of collaboration is
necessary. Working in silos is not an approach that leads to progress and success in
enterprises.
Trying to deal with complexity all on your own is mind-numbingly difficult. Use your
networks and sharpen your team learning skills, so that you can collaboratively process
complexity into bite-sized chunks and deal with them effectively. Take full advantage of
collaborative technologies and environments, where rapid acceleration of collective
thinking and agendas can take place, and many options can be tested and selected from in
real time (Wood 2002, p. 120).
Literature on complex systems also indicates that because of non-linearity the
leaders have to learn to let go and, instead of trying to control, they should engage in three
types of behavior: enabling rather than imposing emerging processes, being genuinely
accessible to people, and attuning to the macro and micro level of the system and the
people that comprise it (Lewin and Regine 2002). Such behaviors require quite a different
mindset from traditional systems engineering where stable requirements and linearity
allows for control. Complexity requires a move from top-down command-and-control
mechanisms to an approach of fostering "distributed intelligence" across the system.
Distributed intelligence is "networked human brains scattered throughout a firm"
(McKelvey 2002, p. 87). This is necessary because "in a world of fast-moving technology,
market preferences, and coevolving competitor strategies and actions, the 'vision on the top'
is most likely out of date relative to the fast moving pace of events near the lower
perimeters of the firm" (McKelvey 2002, p. 87).
everyone in an enterprise can teach and learn.
Distributed intelligence implies that
In practice, however, people in large
organizations with important verbal inputs often exhibit a 'self-protective silence' either
because they perceive speaking up as risky or due to a human tendency of risk avoidance
(Detert and Edmondson 2005).
Therefore, the mindset in an enterprise needs to be
-76-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
conducive to open communication. Further, complex systems require a healthy level of
diversity and connectivity of themes (Dooley 2002), and for an enterprise a change in
mindset also entails being comfortable with diversity of ideas and approaches. Although
not a finding of the survey, this literature suggests that ESE may need a mindset that
accepts diversity and embraces a constructive and challenging exchange of ideas.
From a few qualitative responses to the SCESE survey, I gathered a sense of
ambiguity on what the management of enterprise systems engineering really means: is it
fundamentally
different
from
traditional
systems
engineering.
One respondent
commented, "Ifyou look at System Engineering and Enterprise System Engineering ... I
can't remember the last time that a system was delivered on time and within budget."
Lissack and Rivkin along with distinguished academics and executives have explored the
concept of complexity management in their anthology, The Interaction of Complexity and
Management. While complexity has brought forward a range of challenges, they argue that
the underlying job of management is actually still the same: hire the best people for a given
job, create an environment where people reach their potential, promote new ideas, leverage
resources, focus on both short term and long term and so forth. What has significantly
changed is the rapid pace at which decisions must be made (Lissack 2002a). This is largely
because change is ever present in complex systems as well as enterprises, and as the results
of this study suggest a mindset of accepting and expecting change is needed in rapidly
evolving systems. One aspect in which the job of enterprise management may differ from
Lissack's description is that enterprise managers may have to create an environment where
not only individuals reach their potential but where collaborative distributed intelligence is
fostered within and across organizations.
Enabling Environment
Personal skills and mindsets both need a supporting environment to thrive: an
organizational
environment where there is an accessibility of expertise, learning
opportunities, and a culture of sharing new findings (Kerr 2000; McKelvey 2004).
In complex systems different people placed in the same structure tend to behave in similar
ways. When we attribute behavior to personality we lose sight of how the structure of the
- 77 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
system shaped our choices.. .When we attribute behavior to people rather than system
structure the focus of management becomes scapegoating and blame rather than the
design of organizations in which ordinary people can achieve extraordinary results
(Sterman 2000, pp. 28-29).
In terms of communication, changing practices is not merely about suggesting new
skills but about overcoming organizational inertia towards effective communication,
altering language use coupled with a supporting organizational structure.
It requires
understanding how individuals view their role in the communication pathway-do they
consider themselves as information carriers or as communicators who adapt their
communication style based on who is listening (customers, technologists, policy makers,
regulators). Shifting individual's view of their role may require changing communication
style, language and terms in everyday talk. Organizations have to explain to their employees
why the change in communication is needed, what the new communication style will be
like, and the value of making this change. Not only top management but front-line
supervisors need to be doing this explaining (Suchan 2006). Training has to be continually
provided (Suchan 2006) on not only communicating but also on information processing. In
organizations information saturation often occurs (large number of emails, meetings, etc.)
and therefore there must be training on how to distinguish information that indicates a
critical change in conditions (Mitchell and Jackson 2006).
Besides training, feedback has to be provided. Organizations need to maintain an
environment that enables employees to perform at their best. This requires a feedback loop
in which employees inform management what their environment needs, and management
adjusts accordingly22 (Mitchell and Jackson 2006). And organizational systems have to be
aligned with the new communication practices one is trying to instill (Suchan 2006).
Lastly, given that enterprises have to manage threats and changes, a mechanism to
communicate with the entire enterprise must be present. Complex organisms under threat
have mechanisms to communicate with all the parts of their body to prepare for response.
These mechanisms are kept to full capacity and not overused (Mitchell and Jackson 2006).
For enterprises, efficient and effective communication channels for emerging or present
Managers can also conduct work-place surveys to gather information on what environment would be
conducive to optimal employee performance.
22
-78-
TeOganizational and Political Challenges of Enterprs
ytm
niern
Faaiza Rashid
changes (internal or external to the enterprise) through which enterprise members can be
informed need to exist. The Lean Enterprise Model (LEM) suggests three metrics for
seamless information flow: commonality of databases, information retrieval time, and
information sharing between customers and suppliers (Lean Advanced Initiative (LAI)
2007) that could be applicable to enterprise initiatives.
With regard to building relationships, in a complex organization, the job of senior
employees is not to control but to generate an environment that promotes and supports
long-term trustful relationships. Employees should be trained on how to build strong
relationships (Janis 1972; Burt 1992; McKelvey 2004) that are at the forefront of
complexity management. Here, expertise of those systems engineers or individuals with
strong relationships with suppliers or contractors could help guide others by sharing their
stories and styles of interaction.
An enabling environment can also help the process of effective decision-making.
The Lean Enterprise Model (LEM) suggests making decisions at the lowest possible level
by designing organizational structure and management systems that promote decision
making at the right intersection of knowledge and application. For this, one needs to know
the number of organizational levels and the associated nodes and modes. LEM
recommends the following practices that enable effective decision-making that could be
applicable to enterprises: 1) creation of multi-disciplinary teams; 2) decision delegation and
sharing across the value chain; 3) individual empowerment needed to make decisions at the
appropriate mode of knowledge and application; and 4) providing an environment that
enables expedited decision-making (Lean Advanced Initiative (LAI) 2007).
Enterprises suffer greatly from a lack of shared vision due to competing interests
and needs. An enabling environment must empower individuals with tactics that help
generate value and eventually stakeholder buy-in.
The Enterprise Value Framework
suggests strategies to identify, propose and deliver value (Murman, Allen et al. 2002) in
conditions quite similar to ESE dynamics-multiple stakeholders, high interdependencies,
need for a shared vision, need for resilience and flexibility (Table 17).
-
79 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Table 17: Enterprise Value Framework, adapted from (Nightingale and Rhodes 2004, p.4)citing (Murman,
Allen et al. 2002)
Phase
Value
Identification
Purpose
To ensure that the
"right job" gets
done
Value
Proposition
To create a shared
value proposition
Value Delivery
To ensure "job is
done right"
Activities
Identifying stakeholders and through dialogue achieving agreement on
their needs
Prioritizing needs and interdependencies
Assessing current state of meeting needs
Assessing gaps between current and emerging needs
Assessing gaps in current state and known problems
Understanding areas of mutual gain and converging perspectives
Negotiating and aligning individual value needs
Drafting mission statements and agreement contracts
Developing agreements and incentive structures
Strategizing for collaboration
Implementing lean principles/practices across the value stream and
aligning the necessary support systems
Establishing robustness and flexibility in infrastructure
Although training to manage uncertainty is not a finding of this survey, I think an
enabling environment must also empower its employees with tools that enable quick
learning of complicated issues such as uncertainty. The Learning Plan develop by a sevenyear Alfred P. Sloan Foundation research study, in collaboration with the Industrial
Research Institute, tracked the progress of twelve breakthrough innovation projects in ten
large, technology intensive firms.2 ' The study identified four categories of uncertaintytechnical, market, organizational and resource-and developed a Learning Plan (see
Appendix D) to counter and manage project uncertainty (Rice, O'Connor et al. 2008).
Organizations that are part of an enterprise must also have such a learning plan for
maintaining shared situational awareness about an enterprise. If enterprise organizations
embrace simple tools such as the Learning Plan that are user-friendly, convenient to use,
but bring great benefit of learning and coordination, chances are there will be less resistance
to such an action than toward a complicated way of keeping all organizations abreast on the
evolving enterprise environment.
V.3 Future Research
The qualitative results of this study synthesized with the SCESE case studies and
relevant literature raise a set of questions that can be subjects of future research:
23
Air Products and Chemicals, Analog Devices, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Nortel
Networks, Polaroid, Texas Instruments and United Technologies.
-80-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
1) Is the lack of central authority in enterprises a fundamental organizational flaw that
leads to social context challenges? How would centralization or decentralization affect
the social contexts of enterprise systems engineering? Given the pros and cons of
centralization and decentralization should enterprises be hybrid in their organization
and planning, that is, some aspects of an enterprise should be centralized while others
should be decentralized? Or should enterprises be dynamic and switch modes of
organization and planning depending on the context? If so, then how would enterprises
identify the nodes and develop the flexibility to switch modes of planning and
organization?
2)
Given there are different types of ESE projects (as identified in the SCESE case
studies and underlying the concept of the ESE Profiler), what strategies can
preemptively prepare different types of enterprises for some of the social context
challenges identified in this survey: aligning stakeholders, achieving consensus,
communicating effectively, building relationships, managing change and uncertainty?
3)
Given that many businesses and organizations face novelty, what insights do these
organizations have for designing coordination, communication and adaptation in
enterprises? The Learning Plan (Rice, O'Connor et al. 2008) is an example of how
projects faced with uncertainty can monitor their environment. Are there other tools
that organizations facing novelty are developing that help manage enterprise
emergence?
4)
The hypothesis that addressing certain social context challenges (communication,
building relationships) helps resolve other social context challenges could be further
explored. If the hypothesis is correct then what are the barriers and enablers of effective
communication and building relationships at the individual, organizational and
enterprise level?
5)
Can systems engineers be trained to manage social context challenges? If so, how? Or
is the capability of managing social issues a trait: you either have it or do not? And if it
is a trait then how does one measure ESE management skills for the appropriate
selection process to occur?
-
81 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
6)
Faaiza Rashid
The results from this survey do not specify who should institute the effective practices
proposed. Is it the role of the project lead? Is it the role of senior management? Is it
the role of the leaders of various organizations in an enterprise?
7)
The critical social context challenges found in this study could be further researched. A
study could focus on variables that comprise effective communication in ESE, skills
needed for effective communication, factors (both individual and environmental) that
inhibit and enable effective communication, across the various layers of an enterprise.
8)
Another theme that emerged from the literature was the level of diversity and
connectivity needed to maintain variation necessary in value generating networks.
What are the ways of maintaining diversity and coherence in enterprise networks?
A limitation of this study is that due to confidentiality issues, I did not sit in on any
ESE meetings to observe the social dynamics of the participants.
Future studies can
undertake intensive fieldwork and observe the social dynamics of ESE meetings. To limit
experimenter's bias in these meetings preferably more than one person ought to be
observing these studies. Studies can be focused around observing an ESE meeting with
various stakeholders and then also observing an ESE meeting with members of only one
organization to see how social issues trickle along various levels of an enterprise.
At MIT's Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI), work done on lean enterprises may
hold valuable insights for ESE. The results of this study show that enterprise issues have a
significant resonance with the Lean Enterprise Model (LEM) that includes metrics and
enabling practices for seamless information flow, developing stable relationships based on
mutual trust and commitment, and nurturing a learning environment (Lean Advanced
Initiative (LAI) 2007). Future research could focus on applying the LEM to enterprise
initiatives or generating metrics for the social contexts of ESE using LEM metrics.
Given that socio-technical systems (STS) are similar to enterprise systems in their
interconnectedness of technology and people, STS theory may have insights for the
organizational design of ESE. A study that applies STS theory to the organizational
challenges of ESE could lead to pertinent findings.
-
82 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
The SCESE survey in this study could also be taken by teams/individuals being
managed in ESE projects to see whether the SE leaders' perspective matches the
perspective of those they are leading.
Perhaps building effective relationships is more
important at the senior management level than at the team level of ESE operations,
perhaps it is equally important. Such a study would help isolate the social context
challenges critical for systems engineers at various levels of an ESE endeavor.
One limitation of this research is that systems engineers from only one organization
were surveyed.
Validation of this study's results over the broader systems engineering
community could be the focus of a future research. INCOSE could serve as a source of
names of senior systems engineers or other systems experts. Johns Hopkins University
where a course in Enterprise Systems Engineering is taught could be another source of
contacts.
Revised List of Social Context Challenges
This study reveals the intertwined nature of the social context challenges. Further,
it brings forth five critical social context challenges-building relationships, achieving
consensus, communicating and listening, managing uncertainty and change, and dealing
with organizational and process factors. Exerting influence and drawing on MITRE's
reputation, while important, were more or less assessed as a consequence of effective
management of other social context challenges. Therefore, for future work, a revised list of
social context challenges would include:
- Resolving conflicts amongst stakeholder agendas and amongst organizational factors
such as culture and processes
- Building consensus, coordination and collaboration to align stakeholders
- Managing uncertainty and change while maintaining situational awareness
Many respondents considered communicating and building relationships as a
challenge but also as a tactic that resolves other social context challenges, particularly
achieving consensus and resolving conflicts. Future research can explore what should
populate the effective practices matrix (fable 18) to better manage the revised list of
critical social context challenges.
-
83 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Table 18: Effective Practices Matrix
Personal skills
Includes skills such as communicating effectively, building
relationships, exerting influence, enhancing reputation and
credibility, developing a strategic vision, maintaining
technological awareness, and ease with use of tools and
approaches such as stakeholder analysis.
Mindset
Includes a willingness to collaborate, flexibility, openness to
change, readiness to adapt to new technology, and the desire
to have big picture understanding.
Organizational structure
Includes standard decision making processes, common
information flow mechanisms, resilient and adaptive
organizational design, training in personal skills such as
communication and networking, cross-program and crossorganizational forums and conventions.
-84-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
VI. Conclusion
Prior to this study our understanding of the social context challenges in ESE was
based on five case studies. These case studies were based on in-depth interviews and
therefore rich in qualitative data and insights for individual instances, but not sufficient for
generalizations about the social landscape of ESE. This study is the first step in generating
the overall social context issues of ESE.
This research adds to the body of work on social contexts of ESE in four unique
ways. First it assesses the overall nature and impact of social context challenges in ESE.
Second it compares the importance of social context challenges to technical issues in ESE.
Third it explores specific challenges that need to be overcome to better manage the social
contexts of ESE. Fourth, it gathers a set of effective practices to address these challenges.
Respondents in this study collectively represented 316 SE project lead experiences
and over 400 cumulative years of experience leading SE projects. Over 70 percent of the
respondents consider the management of social context challenges essential to the success
of ESE.
Only 15 percent of the respondents considered technical issues to be more
important than social context challenges in ESE.
Over 65 percent of the respondents
assessed that social context challenges have gotten more difficult in recent years. Nearly
one-half of the respondents selected building relationships, achieving consensus, effective
communication and listening, managing change and uncertainty, and dealing with
organizational and process factors as the critical social context challenges.
To effectively manage the social context challenges of ESE requires personal skills,
a certain mindset both at the individual and collective enterprise level, and an environment
that enables the right skills and mindset to thrive. Individual skills include: effective and
inclusive communication style, ability to build and manage trust-based relationships, and
ability to understand the social dynamics of an enterprise such as organizational cultures
and motives.
Individual skills also include effective use of tools (such as forecasting
methodologies, stakeholder analysis) and tactics (such as building stakeholder buy-in,
forging relationships amongst leaders of the organizations) that help manage the social
-85
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
context challenges. The mindset in ESE ought to be collaborative with a willingness to
learn and teach and marked with an expectation that change is inevitable in an enterprise.
Also a non-engineering mindset that appreciates the subjective importance of building
relationships, using stories for narration, and discussion/discovery (rather than strictly
problem-solving) mode of developing solutions is needed in ESE.
An enabling
environment recognizes that ESE requires advanced social skills and values these social
skills as a necessary capability in the human capital of an enterprise. This means providing
training in the required social skills, and incorporating these skills as a factor in selection
and/or promotion criteria. An enabling environment also means instituting mechanisms
that help build relationships, increase collaboration and maintain a smooth flow of
communication.
Such mechanisms include convening exchange forums that bring
together cross-program teams, standardizing the use of information flow tools, and
minimizing reporting hierarchy to ensure seamless communication at all times especially
during change. An enabling environment also means designing organizational structures
that are adaptive and resilient so that in circumstances of change, people and organizational
structures positively interact rather than obstruct each other as they collectively respond to
change.
Implications of the findings of this study for systems engineers include recognizing
that ESE requires new social skills and developing a collaborative mindset, both of which
can empower them to generate bottom-up coordination and widen their scope of influence
and responsibilities far beyond what they have experienced in traditional systems
engineering. The good news for systems engineers is that they do not have to work in silos
any more; unfortunately this may also be the bad news. Implications for managers include
understanding their role as enablers rather than controllers of the social behavior needed in
ESE. Managers can play a key role in creating the environment that fosters open and
constructive
communication,
learning
and 'collaborative
distributed
intelligence.'
Implications for systems engineering organizations include providing incentives that foster
systems engineering skills needed for ESE, establishing ways for assessing ESE social skills
in individuals, creating forums that open communication paths and help build relationships,
aggregating experiential knowledge of systems engineers working in ESE, and focusing on
-
86 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
making organizations more resilient and capable of continuous information flow, learning
and adaptation. Organizations must also develop structures such that in circumstances of
change and amidst uncertainty, organizational structure supports rather than interferes with
its people.
Implications for MITRE include reassessing the business model of the
programs MITRE supports such that these programs are more integrated and better able
to optimize the differentiated value of their stakeholders. Implications for government
include responding to the issue of lack of central authority in enterprises by funding
research that explores ways to institute a central enabler in enterprise projects. Government
can also encourage the adoption of updated processes in enterprise projects that are in line
Implications for academia include continuing
with the rapid evolution of enterprises.
research on the development of enterprise theory and best practices and incorporating ESE
skills in systems engineering curricula, thereby training the future generations of enterprise
systems engineers.
-
87 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank -
-
88 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
VII. References
Abdi, H. (2007). Kendall rank correlation. Encydlopedia of Measurement and Statistics.
N. J. Salkind. Thousand Oaks (CA), Sage.
Aldridge, A. and K. Levine (2001). Surveying The Social World: Principles and Practice in
Survey Research, Open University Press.
Allen, P. M. (2001). International Journal of Innovation Management 5: 149-180.
Axelrod, R. and M. D. Cohen (2000). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational
Implications of a Scientific Frontier, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Babbie, E. R. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California, Wadsworth
Publishing Company Inc.
Badham, R., C. Clegg, et al. (2000). Socio-technical Theory. Handbook of Ergonomics.
W. Karwowski, John Wiley, New York.
Bahill, A. T. and F. F. Dean (July 7-11, 1996). What is systems engineering? A consensus
of senior systems engineers. 6th Annual International Symposium, INCOSE,
Boston, MA.
Bahill, A. T. and B. Gissing (1998). "Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using
systems thinking." IEEE Transaction on Systems. Man and Cybernetics, Part C:
Applications and Reviews 28(4): 516-527.
Blevins, T. (2006). "The Architecture of Enterprise Architecture, Technical Paper, The
MITRE Corporation."
Brooks, J. (2007). Meeting the Practical Challenge of Government Enterprise Change:
Lessons from Systems Engineering. Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Brooks, J. M., J. W. Beard, et al. (2008). The Changing Nature of Systems Engineering
and Government Enterprises: Report from a Case Study Research Effort.
European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, 2008.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.
Cabana, K. A., L. G. Boiney, et al. (2006). Enterprise Research and Development (Agile
Functionality for Decision Superiority), Volume 9. Enterprise Systems Engineering
Theory and Practice, Technical Paper, The MITRE Corporation.
Carvajal, R. (1983). "Systemic netfields: the systems' paradigm crises, Part I." Human
Relations 36(3): 227-246.
Crider, K. A. and J. K. DeRosa (2007). Findings of Case Studies in Enterprise Systems
Engineering. 1st Annual IEEE Systems Conference, 9-13 April 2007.
Defense Acquisition University (2001). Systems Engineering Fundamentals, Defense
Acquisition University Press.
-
89 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
DeGroot, M. H. and M. J. Schervish (2002). Probability and Statistics. 3rd ed., Boston,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
DeRosa, J. K., G. Rebovich, et al. (2006). An Enterprise Systems Engineering Model
INCOSE International Symposium, 2006.
Detert, J. R. and A. C. Edmondson (2005). NO EXIT, NO VOICE: THE BIND OF
RISKY VOICE OPPORTUNITIES IN ORGANIZATIONS. Academy of
Management Proceedings, Academy of Management.
Dooley, K. (2002). Applying Complexity: Really. The Interaction of Complexity and
Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
EIA Standard IS-632 (December 1994). Systems Engineering.
Emery, F. E. and E. L. Trist, Eds. (1960). Socio-technical Systems. Management Science,
Models and Techniques, London: Pergamon Press.
Fink, A. (2005). How To Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide, Sage Publications.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
IEEE P1220 (26 September 1994). Standard for Application and Management of the
Systems Engineering Process, [Final Draftl.
INCOSE (1996). "AConsensus of the INCOSE Fellows
".
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Group Think. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin.
Johns Hopkins University. (2007). "Enterprise Systems Engineering, Engineering
Programs for Professionals Course Description
",
from
http://www.epp.jhu.edu/courses/645/753.
Johnson, N. L. (2000). The Development of Collective Structure and Its Response to
Environmental Change. Los Alamos, NM, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Joint Chief of Staff. (2005). "CJCSI 3170.01E." from
http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs directives/cdata/unlimit/3170 01.pdf.
Kelly, S. (2004). Complexity Science on Coevolving Business with Rapid Change.
Complexity Theory and the Management of Networks, Proceedings of the
Workshop on Organisational Networks as Distributed Systems of Knowledge. P.
Andriani and G. Passiante. London, UK, Imperial College Press.
Kerr, S. (2000). The Development and Diffusion of Knowledge at GE, Presentation at
the Organization Science Winter Conference, Keystone. CO.
Lean Advanced Initiative (LAI), M. (2007). "The Lean Enterprise Model." from
http://lean.mit.edu/weblem/architecture.html.
LeBaron, B. (2000). Financial Market Efficiency in a Coevolutionary Environment
Proceedngs of the Workshop on Simulations of Social Agents, Argonne National
Laboratory and University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
-
90 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Lewin, R. and B. Regine (2002). Complexity in Human Terms. The Interaction of
Complexity and Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
Lissack, M. (2002a). Complexity, Management, Coherence and Understanding. The
Interaction of Complexity and Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881,
Quorum Books.
Lissack, M. (2002b). The Role of Language. The Interaction of Complexity and
Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
McKelvey, B. (2002). Complexity and Leadership. The Interaction of Complexity and
Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
McKelvey, B. (2004). "Simple Rules" for Improving Corporate IQ. Basic Lessons from
Complexity Science. Complexity Theory and the Management of Networks.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Organisational Networks as Distributed Systems
of Knowledge. P. Andriani and G. Passiante. London, UK, Imperial College Press.
Mitchell, V.-W. and P. Jackson (2006). 'THE NATURE OF CORPORATE
COMMUNICATION." European Business Forum(26): 37-42.
MITRE. (2008). "Enterprise Systems Engineering." from
http://www.mitre.org/work/systems engineering.htrnl
Murman, E. M. M., T. Allen, et al. (2002). Lean Enterprise Value. New York, Palgrave.
Nightingale, D. J. (2003). Lean Enterprises: An Enterprise Perspective. MIT Lean
Aerospace Initiative Symposium. Cambridge, MA.
Nightingale, D. J. and D. H. Rhodes (2004). Enterprise Systems Architecting: Emerging
Art and Science within Engineering Systems. Engineering Systems Symposium,
MIT.
Norman, D. 0. and M. L. Kuras (2004). "Engineering Complex Systems, Technical
Paper, The MITRE Corporation."
Prusak, L. (2002). An Action Theory of Complexity. The Interaction of Complexity and
Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
Rebovich, G. (2006). Enterprise Systems Engineering Theory and Practice. Volume 2:
Systems Thinking for the Enterprise: New and Emerging Perspectives, Technical
Report, The MITRE Corporation.
Rice, M. P., G. C. O' Connor, et al. (2008). "Implementing a Learning Plan to Counter
Project Uncertainty." Sloan Management Review 49(2).
Rice, M. P., G. C. O'Connor, et al. (2008). 'Implementing a Learning Plan to Counter
Project Uncertainty." MIT Sloan Management Review 49(2): 54-62.
Roberts, J.J. (2006). Enterprise Analysis and Assessment, Volume 7. Enterprise Systems
Engineering Theory and Practice, Technical Report, The MITRE Corporation.
Roth, G. (2007). Enterprise Change Capabilities Research, LAI, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
-
91 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Schultz, R. (2002). Complexity and Management: Why Does It Matter? The Interaction
of Complexity and Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum
Books.
Senge, P. (2002). Human Complexity. The Interaction of Complexity and Management.
M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
Shishko, R., R. G. Chamberlain, et al. (1995). NASA Systems Engineering Handbook,
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information.
Snowden, D. (2002). From Organic to Complex Knowledge Management through the
Use of Story. The Interaction of Complexity and Management. M. Lissack.
Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex
world Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, R. (2006). "Engineering Enterprise Systems:Challenges and Prospects, Technical
Report, The MITRE Corporation."
Suchan, J. (2006). "Changing Organizational Communication Practices and Norms: A
Framework." Journal of Business &Technical Communication 20(1): 5-47.
Swarz, R. S. and J. K. DeRosa (2006). A Framework for Enterprise Systems Engineering
Processes, Technical Report, The MITRE Corporation.
Tasaka, H. (2002). Twenty-First-Century Management and the Complexity Paradigm.
The Interaction of Complexity and Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT
06881, Quorum Books.
Trist, E. and K. Bamforth (1951). "Some social and psychological consequences of the
longwall method of coal getting." Human Relations(4): 3-38.
White, B. E. (2005). A Complementary Approach to Enterprise Systems Engineering,
The MITRE Corporation. National Defense Industrial Association, 8th Annual
Systems Engineering Conference, Hyatt Regency Islandia, San Diego California.
White, B. E. (2006a). "On the Pursuit of Enterprise Systems Engineering Ideas.
Technical Paper, The MITRE Corporation."
Wood, R. (2002). Beyond "e": Creating an Intelligent World. The Interaction of
Complexity and Management. M. Lissack. Westport, CT 06881, Quorum Books.
-92-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
VIII. Appendices
-93-
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
VIII.1 Appendix A: Survey Email Invite and Survey Instrument
Email Invite to Nominated Candidates for Participation in the Survey
I am requesting your participation in an important MITRE systems engineering research
initiative. It will require less than an hour of your time, and a charge code is available if
needed.
As a senior member of the MITRE systems engineering community, you know that the
challenges associated with enterprise scale SE are considerable and growing. One set of
challenges centers on what may be called 'social context'-the organizational, political, and
interpersonal aspects of ESE efforts. The MSR project "Social Contexts of Enterprise
Systems Engineering (SCESE)" is gathering lessons learned from MITRE projects about
such challenges. The project is headed by JoAnn Brooks at MITRE, and John Carroll at
MIT.
To date, the SCESE MSR has relied on data collected via in-depth interviews with a
relatively small set of key technical staff on five projects. The MSR is producing very rich
case studies for each project. The SCESE team now wants to obtain data from a wider
sample of our community on a limited set of cross-cutting questions. The team has
developed a short questionnaire and is seeking as respondents senior level staff with the
experience and perspective to reflect on these questions. They want you to reflect on all of
your experiences and observations and share your thoughts on the nature of social context
challenges, the impact of those challenges on project success, and ideas about effective
practices for addressing these types of challenges.
This is not a simple or easy topic to address, especially in a questionnaire. The MSR
project team has worked hard to make the questions dear and relevant. It is the team's
hope, and one I share, that the questionnaire response rate will be high and responses
thoughtful enough to yield high quality data. Results from the questionnaire will be shared
with the MITRE community, and we expect that the data will help MITRE better define
the character of the social context challenge, identify specific ways to meet it, and benefit
from sharing and growing our knowledge and skills. I strongly endorse this effort, and
encourage you to complete the questionnaire promptly.
The link to the questionnaire is given below. If necessary, you may charge up to one hour
of your time to
.
The deadline for responding is Wednesday, March 5,
2008.
Regards,
Respective MITRE Center Head
-
94 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Ente rise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Social Contexts of Enterprise Systems Engineering Survey, Intranet Version
This questionnaire isfocused on enterprise-scale systems engineering, where "enterprise" isdefined as a collection of
interdependent systems, induding people, processes, and technology. It can refer to a supply chain, a corporation, a
program, and other large-scale, complex adaptive entitles. Enterprise systems engineering (ESE) projects often evolve In
somewhat unpredictable ways due, inpart, to their multiple end users and multiple stakeholder organizations (suppliers,
sponsors, customers, users, etc.) that have to coordinate their work. These drivers of unpredictability define the "social
context" of ESE, and indude organizational and political challenges that are often very difficult to overcome. These challenges
include:
* Communicating and listening effectively within and across multiple organizations
* Building effective relationships with a variety of Individuals, including staff, clients, users, sponsors, and other
stakeholders
* Achieving consensus among stakeholders and dealing with conflict
* Exerting influence on a wide range of non-MITRE stakeholders with diverse Interests
* Responding effectively to uncertainty and change as projects and operational environments evolve
0 Dealing with organizational and process factors (e.g. decision making structures) and their effects on
Individual roles, responsibilities, and routines
. Drawing on and enhancing MITRE's reputation for objectivity and trustworthiness
1. Considering your experience with MITRE projects over the past 5 or so years, has there been significant
change In the social context challenges encountered In MITRE projects? Would you say those challenges
have:
O Gotten more manageable
'Stayed about the same
O Gotten more difficult
2. Over the past 5 or so years, how would you describe MITRE's knowledge, skills, and capability for
addressing the challenges of social context InESE? Would you say that MITRE has:
0 Lost capability
0 Not substantially changed Its capability
0 Developed more capability
3. Are there any social context challenges missing from the list above?For a reminder of the list of ESE
challenges, dick here
- 95 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
4. Considering the list of social context challenges (including ones you have added), select 3 that you feel are
critical to the success of a systems engineering initiative. Briefly explain why.
1.
2.
3.
5. What are some effective practices for addressing the 3 challenges you selected? Please share stories that
illustrate use of these practices, or thoughts on how they could be applied.
Practice:
Practice:
Practice:
6. Are there any resources you would recommend to someone with project leadership responsibilities for
managing social context issues? These might be books or articles, Web sites, briefings, templates, tools, etc.
7. Thinking across all of your experience with MITRE projects that have enterprise attributes, how important
to overall project success is effective management of social context challenges?
0 Essential to success
O Very helpful
O Somewhat helpful
0 Not necessary for success
- 96 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
8. We'd like you to weigh the importance of social context issues as compared with technical aspects of ESE.
We recognize that at times the two may be so Intertwined that comparing them Is not practical, but as a
general rule, would you say that: (please check one)
If you get the technical issues right, the social context issues become unimportant
The technical Issues are paramount, but you can't Ignore the social context
It Isequally important to address technical and social context issues
The technical issues are important, but the social context issues are more important
O Technical issues always matter, but the social context Issues drive success
We appreciate any comments that would clarify your answer:
For all of the questions In this section, we want to be sure that we capture your thoughts fully and accurately.
It may be helpful for us to follow up with clarifying questions. If you don't object to that follow-up, what Is the
best way to reach you?
Email:
Phone:
What Is your current job title at MITRE? For example: enterprise Information engineer, senior systems
engineer, acquisitions specialist, etc.
How many years have you been at MITRE?
011-15 years
O 6-10 years
O-5 years
016-20 years
OOver 20 years
For how many of those years have you been a Project Lead for efforts Involving systems engineering?
O More than IS
011-15
0 6-10
0 0-5
For those years as a Project Lead, please estimate the number of different projects you have led.
Given the content of the questions asked In this survey, who else should we ask to take this survey that has
the experience and perspective to provide thoughtful answers In a questionnaire format?
- 97 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Are there any questions we didn't ask that you think we should have asked? Do you have any other comments
you'd like to offer on the questionnaire?
Subit Survey
- 98 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
VIII.2 Appendix B: Chi-square and Kendall Rank Order Test Example
Chi-square test were performed to determine relationship between respondents
experience (years at MITRE, years leading SE projects, number of different SE projects
led) and their assessment of the overall importance of social context challenges, comparison
of social context challenges with technical challenges, change in difficulty of social context
challenges and change in capabilities to meet the social context challenges. Out of the 12
tests performed, no statistically significant associations were found. On the same data,
Kendall rank order test was also performed to test the strength of the cross tabulations.
No association was found in the 12 tests performed. An example computation is shown
below.
Importance of Social Context
Essential to Success
Very helpful
Somewhat helpful
Total
Years as Project Lead
11-15
6-10
0-5
10
10
5
6
1
3
0
1
0
16
12
8
Over 15
8
0
1
9
Total
33
10
2
45
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
df
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
8.782a
6
.186
Likelihood Ratio
11.386
6
.077
Linear-by-Linear Association
.085
1
.771
N of Valid Cases
45
1
a.8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .36.
Symmetric Measures
Approx.
Ordinal by Ordinal
Interval by Interval
Value
Asymp. Std. Error"
Tb
Approx. Sig.
Kendall's tau-b
-.065
.134
-.484
.628
Kendall's tau-c
-.053
.110
-.484
.628
Spearman Correlation
-.072
.147
-.474
.638c
Pearson's R
-.044
.153
-.289
.774c
45
N of Valid Cases
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on normal approximation.
- 99 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
VIII.3 Appendix C: Why a Given Social Context Challenge is Critical?24
Why build effective relationships?
Respondents explained that it is critical to build relationships in ESE to manage
other social context challenges, to foster stakeholder collaboration and coordination, and to
manage detailed complexity2 s (See Table 19).
1) To manage other social context challenges in ESE: Building consensus,
communicating effectively, exerting influence, maintaining situational awareness,
managing change, building trust can flow from building effective relationships
[T]he social aspects of building consensus, communicating effectively and exerting
influence cannot be achieved without a strong relationship of trust. Relationships are at
the core of all the social aspects that ESE is attempting to address.
Building effective relationships
- To maintain
situational awareness
of
activities/changes/decisions that are occurring in related programs to help improve (or
avoid degrading) the overall system of systems.
Table 19: Why Build Effective Relationships in ESE?
Why Build Effective Relationships?
To manage other social context challenges in ESE
To foster stakeholder colloboration and coordination
To manage detailed complexity
Count
10
7
3
Inconclusive_4
No
explanation
Percent
40
28
12
16
offered
Total
1
1
4
25
100
2) To foster stakeholder collaboration and coordination: Organizational interdependence
in ESE makes stakeholder collaboration and coordination essential. Building relationships
can help foster collaboration and coordination.
Effective relationships across many groups is key. Without them collaborative efforts are
difficult to achieve. In this increasingly interdependent environment that is critical.
24 There
are three challenges in appendix C for which the counts do not match with the counts in Table 4.
1) Dealing with organizational and process factors because a respondent offered more than one explanation.
2) Achieving consensus and responding effectively to uncertainty and change because the additions from
Table 8 increase the count of these challenges in Table 4 by 3 and 4 respectively. And it would not be
correct to include the explanations for these additions under "achieving consensus" and "responding
effectively to uncertainty and change."
Detailed complexity is when there are many variables and the large number of variables make a system
complex. This is different from dynamic complexity, where cause and effect is not clear and effects of
interventions are not obvious (Sterman, 2000).
25
- 100 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
.... often large-scale or critical initiatives of any size try to assume everyone is working
toward the same goal. While well-intentioned, this is fundamentally wrong and naive.
Management, leadership, and contracting roles establish contexts and constraints that
must be recognized and managed. Building a trust relationship across these roles is a
critical success factor for leading the transformation desired in systems engineering
initiatives.
Given the enterprise is made up of a number of different communities with different
priorities, the challenge here is a balanced investment, which benefits the enterprise as a
whole by supporting components of the enterprise
3) To manage detailed complexity: ESE often involves multiple organizations and a large
number of people. Building effective relationships helps manage the detailed complexity
inherent in ESE.
With today's complex systems, families of systems and enterprise wide thinking the
number of individuals involved in a given endeavor has exploded. Without building and
maintaining effective working relationships, it is almost impossible to get anything done.
Why Communicate and Listen Effectively?
Respondents explained that effective communication and listening is needed to
foster stakeholder coordination, collaboration and understanding, to establish ESE goals
and to manage the evolving context of ESE. Linkages between effective communication
and other social context challenges surfaced frequently (Table 20).
Table 20: Why Communicate and Listen Effectively in ESE?
Why Communicate and Listen?
To foster collaboration, coordination and understanding
To effectively establish the goals and strategic context of ESE
To manage evolving context of ESE
To avoid miscommunication
Comments but not explanations
No explanation offered
Total
Count
8
6
2
1
3
4
24
Percent
33
25
8
4
13
17
100
1) To foster coordination, collaboration and understanding: Without stakeholder
alignment and collaboration, the ESE will struggle to move towards its common goal.
Without communication, the necessary alignment and collaboration is difficult to achieve.
Communicating and listening effectively - without it, the diverse organizations will do
what they want to do (without consideration of the other elements involved) with likely
ineffective results.
Communications and listening effectively. This requires open minds, cooperation, and a
large investment of time and resources for thoughtful consideration and analysis of all
stakeholder views. It is essential for the collaboration needed for effective systems
engineering and achieving consensus.
-101-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
2) To effectively establish the goals and strategic context of ESE:
Establishing a strategic context for SE of the enterprise. One of the challenges in an
enterprise is developing a strategic basis for enterprise evolution, often because the SE
gets bogged down in trying to meet the aggregate set of requirements of the different
communities in the enterprise and trying to reconcile them among themselves, rather than
focusing on cross cutting enterprise goals as the basis for enterprise value
Communicating and Listening Effectively - Directly impacts the input to the systems
engineering processes related to planning and analysis. All too often we see systems
designed based on what we think it should be instead of what they said it should be
3) To manage the evolving context of ESE:
Once everyone has provided input, and the baseline is set, then progress toward a goal can
be made. Good communications are required during the entire process to include
updates/changes, which affect the goal.
Why Achieve Consensus?
Respondents' explained that achieving consensus is necessary to develop a big
picture understanding of the enterprise and thereby align stakeholders to work towards
meeting the ESE goals rather than work against each other to advance their individual
agendas. Achieving consensus is necessary to deal with stakeholders' competing agendas
(Table 21).
Table 21: Why Achieve Consensus?
Why Achieve Consenus?
To understand/deal with stakeholders' conflicting agendas
To develop big picture understanding/align stakeholders to meet ESE goals
Comments
No response
Total
Count
10
9
1
2
22
Percent
45
41
5
9
100
1) To understand/deal with stakeholders' conflicting agendas:
Achieving consensus among the stakeholders. There are often disagreements by the
stakeholders because they have their own motivations - what is good for them personally,
good for their organization, or just being right. Lack of consensus results in multiple
solutions being implemented (lack of guidance, contrary efforts, competition for
resources) or no solution being implemented (no direction to move forward).
Achieving consensus: This has always been a challenge in SE, but is particularly
problematic in an enterprise construct because the enterprise is much more likely to
include stakeholders with diametrically opposing interests-and (as mentioned above)
there is often no effective central authority to objectively balance those interests.
- 102 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
2) To develop a big picture understanding:
Achieving consensus among stakeholders- The stakeholders are often pushing for their
own personal agendas and may not see the big picture with respect to satisfying everyone.
It's important that we can bridge the gaps across these different "agendas".
Achieving consensus among stakeholders - without it, the diverse organizations will do
what they want to do (without consideration of the other elements involved) with likely
ineffective results.
Why Deal with Organizational and Process Factors?
Respondents gave a variety of reasons that made this challenge critical for ESE
success: to identify organizational adaptations needed for ESE mission, to align
organizations, to obtain organizational buy-in, to identify organizational constraints and
learn how the system works, to deal with lack of central authority amongst others (Table
22).
Table 22: Why Deal with Organizational and Process Factors?
Why Deal with Organizational and Process Factors?
To identify organizational adaptations needed for ESE mission
To align organizations, obtain their buy-in
To identify organizational constraints, learn how the system works
To deal with lack of central authority
To manage change
Because this affects decision making
Comments
No response
Total
Count
6
5
4
2
1
1
1
2
22
Percent
27
23
18
9
5
5
5
9
100
Dealing with organizational and process factors: Over time, organizations change, dates
change, dollars to complete change, requirements change so you should continually
review/assess to path to completion and make sure the costumer understands any change
that impacts the effort
Dealing with organizational and process factors. Although it is probably never the case
that the interests of all participating can be fully accommodated, there must be some
common core set of objectives across the participating organizations to gain the buy-in
Sometimes organizations are involved in
necessary to make a program successful.
programs by direction or lose interest in a program because of competing priorities.
Dealing with organizational and process factors: A salient characteristic of an enterprise
seems to be the absence of any hierarchical decision-making structure that can
deterministically influence the behavior of all the stakeholders. This means that, even if
there is a stakeholder that is responsible for the success of the overall enterprise, that
stakeholder has limited authority to actually implement systems engineering decisions
across the enterprise.
-
103
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Dealing with organizational and process factors. As noted above, we spend too much
time trying to adapt outmoded process and organization to emerging problems, too often
simply "recycling" the same processes over and over. We need to become more agile and
LESS organizationally constrained...
Dealing with organizational and process factors. Constraints are often process or external
resource driven...when you can get resources ($$$), who does.. .or doesn't have the
authority to make decisions across programs or organizations and when they can make it.
If we can not understand the constraints and organizational factors, it is more difficult to
recommend an approach that works within the acquisition system and operational usage
processes.
Dealing with organizational and process factors (e.g. decision making structures). The
ability to collaborate effectively across organizations and have an impact often means that
the individual organizational processes need to share information in a timely manner. If
the processes, methods, and timing elements do not permit synergies or timely decision
making then achieving success is impacted.
Organizational and process factors: How a program is organized and the processes
selected for application on the program are critical to its success. Organization and
processes have a great impact on the system effectiveness, reliability, cost effectiveness,
quality, and stability. Processes for configuration management, software development,
agile acquisition, budget formulation and tracking, document controls, metric
assessments, oversight reporting, and others, all require a sound organization structure
and a total enterprise engineering process suite in order for the program to be successful.
Understanding the interplay of mission, values, and organizational cultures as they shape
options, decisions, and outcomes is essential to SE success. What works in one
government agency won't necessarily work in another because they differ in mission,
values, and cultures.
Why Respond Effectively to Uncertainty and Change?
_Respondents explained change is inevitable in enterprises and as enterprises evolve
the operational requirements must be adapted accordingly. One respondent reasoned that
change can be positive as it may serve as a window of opportunity that allows one to push
forward ideas and recommendations (Table 23).
Table 23: Why Respond to Uncertainty and Change?
Why Respond to Uncertainty and Change?
Because leadership, stakeholders, budgets, industries, and mission change
To develop operational requirements accordingly
To take advantage of window of change
To maintain your organizational viability
Comments
No response
Total
Count
6
5
1
1
2
3
18
Percent
33
28
6
6
11
17
100
Responding to uncertainty and change: Most or all of our sponsors are government
entities. Each is subject to fluctuations in leadership, budget, and mission, any or all of
which can occur over the life of a program. It is imperative that our ESE approach
- 104 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
provides the necessary foundation and underlying principles that allow us to respond to
uncertainty and change without detracting from the mission of providing the required
useful product to the user community.
Responding effectively to uncertainty and change In todays environment, change and
uncertainty are the norm. Forming an organization or enacting a process which deals
directly and positively with change is key to success.
Responding effectively to uncertainty and change - Major complex programs generally
undergo several significant changes in scope, intent, timeline. These seem to be the times
most receptive to well-reasoned recommendations.
Responding effective to uncertainty and change--change is constant and difficult to both
comprehend and to control due to the uncertainties. Human nature, and more important,
most systems engineering approaches are based on the foundation of analyzing and
establishing baselines for both requirements and solutions--completely contrary to the
concepts of uncertainty and change.
Why Exert Influence?
Respondents explained that exerting influence was needed to gain support, increase
collaboration, expedite decision making and establish your organization's value proposition
for the enterprise (Table 24).
Table 24: Why Exert Influence?
Why Exert Influence?
To gain support
To increase collaboration
To expedite decision making
To establish your organization's value proposition
Comments
Total
Count
4
2
1
1
3
11
Percent
36
18
9
9
27
100
Exerting influence on non-MITRE stakeholders -- It's primarily important to defuse
potential blockers, and secondarily to gain supporters.
Exerting influence on non-MITRE stakeholders with diverse interests. Because you can
take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Influencing non-MITRE participants is critical because projects and programs must
become so much more collaborative. MITRE is now a small part of cross discipline and
cross organizational teams. There are many external players that now impact the project.
Exerting influence on non-MITRE stakeholders. MITRE is an advisor. We must
convince the decision makers that a solution we propose is the right one to make the
solution happen. This must be done in the environment of cross interests from other
individuals, agencies or Government support contractors as they do their job or attempt to
justify their existence.
- 105 -
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
Why Draw On and Enhance MITRE's Reputation?
Respondents explained that drawing on and enhancing MITRE's reputation was
necessary to select an effective ESE team, to educate stakeholders, to build trust,
credibility, and relationships (Table 25)
Table 25: Why Draw On and Enhance Reputation?
Why Draw on Reputation?
Count
Percent
To select an effective ESE team
1
20
To educate stakeholders
To build trust and credibility
To build relationships
Total
2
1
1
5
40
20
20
100
Drawing on and enhancing MITRE's reputation - selection of staff, and particularly
leadership, of efforts must balance effectiveness against harmony of relationships.
Drawing on the knowledge of others and having them trust you enough to tell you is
critical to supporting the customer once you have their confidence
Synergistic with #1 above is the challenge of "showing MITRE's differentiated value"
which is an added challenge above. It is goes "hand in hand" with "drawing on and
enhancing MITRE's reputation." Several times each year (at a min.) I have had to
educate our sponsors on the differentiated value our Corporation is able to provide as
compared to a "for profit" corporation. I believe it is important to bring our Corporation
to bear on our sponsors in a variety of ways, to include the MITRE Innovation Program
(MIP)-formerly the MTP. Once this challenge is appreciated.......it has always lead to a
fruitful relationship.
Drawing on and enhancing MITRE's reputation- There are some instances where the
sponsor doesn't understand how best to use MITRE resources. In these cases, we will
need to draw on MITRE's broad range of skills/knowledge to demonstrate how useful
we can be to their work.
-
106
-
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
VIII.4 Appendix D: Definitions of Systems Engineering
The International Council on Systems Engineering 26 (INCOSE) defines SE as
follows:
Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization
of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality
early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, then proceeding with design
synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem.. .Systems
Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming
a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation.
Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers
with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs (INCOSE 1996).
Definition in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Systems
Engineering handbook:
Systems engineering is a robust approach to the design, creation, and operation of
systems. In simple terms, the approach consists of identification and quantification of
system goals, creation of alternative system design concepts, performance of design
trades, selection and implementation of the best design, verification that the design is
properly built and integrated, and post-implementation assessment of how well the
system meets (or met) the goals (Shishko, Chamberlain et al. 1995, p. 3).
Definition in the Defense Acquisition University Systems Engineering Fundamentals
guide:
In summary, systems engineering is an interdisciplinary engineering management process
that evolves and verifies an integrated, life-cycle balanced set of system solutions that
satisfy customer needs..... Systems engineering consists of two significant disciplines:
the technical knowledge domain in which the systems engineer operates, and systems
engineering management (Defense Acquisition University 2001, p. 3).
Electronic Industries Association (EIA) Standard for Systems Engineering:
An interdisciplinary approach that encompasses the entire technical effort, and evolves
into and verifies an integrated and life cycle balanced set of system people, products, and
process solutions that satisfy customer needs (EIA Standard IS-632 December 1994).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard of Systems Engineering:
An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach that derives, evolves, and verifies a life-cycle
balanced system solution which satisfies customer expectations and meets public
acceptability (IEEE P1220 26 September 1994).
The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) was founded in 1990. It is a non-profit
membership organization with over six thousand members. Members include senior practitioners, technical
engineers, corporate management, students, academia. The mission of INCOSE is to advance the
discipline and practice of systems engineering.
26
- 107 -
The Org nizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
Faaiza Rashid
These definitions show that even though there is variation in words, each definition
embodies the essence of SE-SE is as an interdisciplinary field of engineering that builds
systems, requires big picture or systems thinking, and combines technical and non-technical
capabilities to satisfy customer needs.
The definition of SE that emerged from the consensus at INCOSE also led to the
development of SE processes that are described in the table below.
Table 26. Description of Systems Engineering Processes (Bahill
and Dean July 7-11,1996)
The SIMILAR Process
The Systems Engineering Consensus
State the Problem
Understanding customer needs,
Stating the problem,
Discovering system requirements,
Validating requirements
Investigate Alternatives
Defining performance and cost figures
of merit,
Exploring alternative concepts,
Sensitivity analyses
Model the System
Functional decomposition,
System modeling,
System design,
Risk management,
Reliability analysis
Integrate
Designing and managing interfaces,
System integration
Launch the System
Configuration management,
Project management,
Documentation
Assess Performance
Prescribing tests
Conducting design reviews
Total system test
Re-evaluate
Improve quality
- 108 -
Faaiza Rashid
The Organizational and Political Challenges of Enterprise Systems Engineering
VIII.5 Appendix E: The Learning Plan
I
Organizational
Uncertainty
Categories
Technical Uncertainty
Market Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Focus
Understanding technologydrivers.valueand
economicfeasibility
Learning about market
Areas to Consider
- Completeness and
correctnessof
underlying scientific
knowledge
* Articulation of new
benefitsthat are
enabled
"Potentialfor multiple
market applications
. Potential cost-saving
advantages
.Approachestosolving
identified technical
problems
"Manufacturing and
softwaredevelopment
requirements
drivers.valuecreation
and businessviability
* Strategic context for
innovation
"Availability of internal
and external funding
e
Size of business potential
"Commitment of senior
management
"Project requirements
for money, team and
partnerships
*Initial markcet entry
application and
follow-on applications
* Initial customerpartners
" cnerrequiredvalue
chain agents
"Existence of other
technicaypotential
competitive solutions
"Business model
appropriateness
e
fallsorisdisappointing
"inabifltytosecureappropriatecustomer partner
e
Ladcof robustness,
e
Potential organizational
resistors
"Projectlead choice
"Team competencies
alignedwith project
reurmnts
" Influencewith corporate
"Talent attraction and
strategy/ management
development
- Expectations of senior
- Competency acquisition
management and
in-houseorexternal
transitioning units
partnerships
"Organizational design
"Partnership Identifica- Project home and
tion.formation and
reporting structure
management strategies
" Nature of project
"Ongoing assessmentof
guidance process
wrrent partnershipsas
project matures
e
Loss ofchampion
intent
"Changein senior
champion/sponsor
.Transfer of responsibilites
depthscope and/or
numberof new
capabilitiesoffered.
resulting Iinited
or constrained market
e
LLifrC)
Market attractiveness
* Relationships with
internal stakeholders
tunsouttobefalse
"Change Insenior managementant~orstrateglc
. Markettestof prototype
Deveopment process
major isues
Source:
Accessing money,people
andorganizationalcompetencies
Clarity ofvalue
proposition
Cotdsaantages
*Technology andlor
application deve4opment issues
Gaining and maintaining
organizationallegitimacy
e
"Scalability at acceptable economics
POtntialPsA "Technology proof of
conceptsetback
and Fatalnws
-'--stoppers
"Prttotype limiltations
Resource Uncertainty
at project transition
"Majorfunding lossdue
torersalofoverall
corporate performance
"Project teamimitations
"inability to attract
required talent
4eLack of partnershp
strategy
"Lackof strategic maretIngcommunicatkms
* Faidreofallancedeal
ortechnical partner
aplications
"Inappropriateportfolio
and projectmetrics
"Undefined partnership
exitconditions
Inappropriatetime,
horizon for newmarket
creation
* insufficientrunway to
demonstrate business
results
OutsmartUpstartr
McDrmottcCConor. Ls.PerM~cand LW rpeJr..1aicadaenovaion: HowMatumCompanis Can
losonHarad~usnSooPres.
2m0.
Figure 15: The Learning Plan to Counter Project Uncertainty (Rice, O'Connor et al. 2008, p.60)
-
109
-